
4, 



:-C <2. <'^: « *■ ;^ 


— 


^->oi^*^^ ^ 




^ 
4 






^ic .< ^"-^v--^ 


z<-^>' << <■■ .^•'^.■', 


_^j^-^ ^f 1 ''■ " *" 


<< <ir <. <^<r <^* 


C.<- ^ ^ ^p^.«c<- ^ 


<>' <r- - v;-^^*^ 




r<x "•■'' '^'^ ^^, 5 








<jr '■'■ ^* ^ 


-K.Zr < ^- ^ 


^ .<•. ^- < '--r ■ < 


f'^^:^ri io-c 




'^'^'^ 






r rrc -xt . c> <£< 


^^^^^D- \ 













-lex? <>rc<?^^<. ^— 














cc' ' • '. <- 


<- ^.^^ <:■ ^^'^^ 












"'C;' ' 


< << 




C<L 


""«2 ' 


c <r'4 


r <^cJ<;c"<r 


« 


'^/'CicL < 


c <^ • 


c' •^EE^* < *" 


« 


•-o^ , 


oc^ 


^^xr- 


<r< 


1 «is 


c <: 


V^'< <^ 


<r< 


<1--' ■■ 


<:<:< 


^<^«< « 


<<£ / 


<r^<::^ 


c: <(^ or' " 


c^ 


^is 


' < 4 


c ^^ <r^- -f- *" 


<<e 


" «rx 


( <' * 


er''^ <<■ < * 


<-< 


<<.c 


. <: « 


t. <r.^< ' ^ 5 


<:<:- 


' ■'XSr.i 


- < ' 4 


cr-«r<- <.^ 


<r<5[ 


<iC£:f ■ 


''<r. < 


■:^<y<< * 


r^j^J* 


<2rC' 


c <: 


-^CkX^ < 


r<:^ 


«;t-" i 


r -c 


=i«r<^LCjr <: 


,<!<" 



^^^ 
s^.*^" 












LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. # 

^-f^^-^ I 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.^ 









^ccicc<«c:l^c 



ccrr^C^ 






^:«f^^'<^*^^ 






^«r €<«!:-< 



51^^ 



^«^-^ 






t <dS..^^^ 






•^:l<x:<v, 



^'^^^i' 



"^c^C. * 


, ^^■ 










<' 






'<-<; r c< 



<<< 















<r <<:Vt;c 



m 

: <r«c 



^S\" 



<iCc 

< r Or 



_< ^ ."- 



jCAcx:; 












ore" \ 




































c<l<S 






<£<sCC • 






<^^^«^ 



<: r <rrc to 



l^^^c' 



^^:c c<r <2. 






4 5'^'^ Oce 



REVIEW 



MR. WHITMAN'S LETTERS 



PROFESSOR STUART, 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 



SECOND EDITION, 



WITH AN APPENDIX NOT BEFORE PUBLISHED. 



BOSTON : 

PEIRCE & PARKER, 9CORNHILL 

18 3 1. 



/ 



A^\ 



'\ 



C-^-"*^ 



n vv 






REVIEW 



Two Letters to the Reverend Moses Stuart, on the sub- 
ject OF Religious Liberty. By Bernard Whitman. Boston : 
Gray h Bowen. 1830. pp. 166. 

Lv July last, Professor Stuart published a Letter to Dr. Chan- 
ning, in which he sets forth the numerous and weighty charges of 
this latter gentleman against the Orthodox, and calls upon him 
eitlier to retract or prove them. More than half a year has now 
elapsed, and the Reverend Doctor has not seen fit to do either the 
one or the other. In the mean time, a feeble attempt has been 
made in the Unitarian Advocate, in part to explain away his alle- 
gations, and in part to justify them.* A more recent attempt of 
the same sort has been made in the Letters which lie before us. 
We gave a brief notice of these Letters on their first appearance, 
stating what we then conceived to be their true import and char- 
acter. We must now go into a more extended examination of 
them, not because we think them entitled, on their own account, 
to further consideration, but because of the zealous efforts of the 
enemies of Orthodoxy to give them currency and favor with the 
publicf — because of the use which is made of them in certain por- 
tions of the country — and because the justice of our first account 
of them has been directly impeached. 

The conductors of the Unitarian Advocate, in their remarks on 
Professor Stuart's Letter, accuse him of misunderstanding, or at 
least of misrepresenting Dr. Channing. 

" The language of Dr. Channing, and of liberal Christians generally, was 
never nieant to be taken in that broad and gross sense which the Professor 
seems to attribute to it." '' He talks of * conspiracies' and ' plots' in which he 
would have it thought that we accuse the Orthodox of having embarked, as it 

* The Articles in the Advocate ou this subject were noticed and replied to in our 
Numbers for Oct. and Nov. 18.30. 

t Repeated and hii^h encomiums have been passed on these Letters in the Unitarian 
Advocate, the Christian Register, and in several of the political papers, both in cUy and 
country. A writer in ihe Ceiitinel speaks of them " as decidedly the nu)st important publi- 
cation that has appeared during the past tjear" !! — as " entirely disproving the solemn as- 
severations of Professor SUiart," and establishing " the justness and truth of Dr. Chan- 
ning's charsres" ! 



4 Review of 

were, with malice prepense ; and to thia gross construction of the charge brought 
against them by tfnitarians, the Letter owes whatever of plausibility it posses- 
ses. But Professor Stuart knows, as well as we, that no such direct^ formal} 
and wicked ^ plot ' or ^conspiracy ' is meant to be charged on the Orthodox." 

The conductors of the Advocate here couple themselves and 
'' Unitarians,''^ and " liberal Christians generally,''^ with Dr. Chan- 
ning in this controversy ; and they expressly deny, on the behalf of 
all concerned, that they have ever accused the Orthodox of any 
" direct, formal, and wicked plot or conspiracy," in the gross sense 
of the terms. It is very unfortunate for some gentlemen, that they 
are not blessed with better memories. It would save them not a 
little self-contradiction, and consequent mortification, if they could 
remember from one year to another, what things they had said 
and published. To assist the recollections of these gentlemen of 
the Advocate, and at the same time to show more clearly the drift 
and bearing of Dr. Channing's accusations, and the points necessa- 
ry to be proved in the Letters of Mr. Whitman, in order to a full 
justification of himself and his brethren, it will be needful to quote 
a few passages from certain Unitarian authors and publications. 

Fifteen years ago, it was said by a noted Unitarian ' Layman^' 

^' The Panoplist may ridicule as much as it pleases the suggestion that they 
(the Orthodox) aim at Ecclesiastical tyranny. We perceive from their spirit 
that the power only is wanting. These new (Ministerial) Associations, if not 
watched and made the objects of jealousy, will soon become tremendous 
engines in the hands of skilful and ambitious men."* 

In a more recent publication, the same writer accuses the Or- 
thodox of reviving "a spirit of intolerance which has had no exam- 
ple, from the banishment of Roger Williams, and the murder of 
Servetus^ and the persecution of the followers of Arminius.^^ " If 
the Orthodox party had now the civil power in their hands, for 

which they have shown of late a great hankering they 

would, not permit a man to vote in civil concerns unless he was a 
church membery\ 

The Christian Examiner says, '' There is to be a combination 
among the most powerful sects to seize the civil power, and 
the use they may hereafter make of it is to be sought in the calam- 
itous history of Christendom for the last fifteen hundred years." 
In the same work, the Orthodox are charged with ' making a 
thousand efforts'^ to restore " a tyranny over the minds of Laymen, 
the loss of which to priests of certain sects of Pharisaical preten- 
sions is as galling, as the simple doctrines of the despised teacher 
of Nazareth were to the high priests and scribes of Jerusalem." 
Again, the Orthodox are charged, in the same work, with wishing 
to " overthow the institutions by Which the state is upheld, in or- 

* Are you a Christian or a Calvinist ? p. G5. 
\ The Rccenl attempt, &c. pp. 9, 17. 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 6 

derto erect on their ruins a power, which by them may be deem- 
ed a blessing, thoiigli in all ages it has been found a curse."* 
We quole the following passages from the Christian Register. 

" There now appears among the more ambilious and designing leaders of the 
(Orthodox) party a disposition to form a powkrful conspiracy, to crush the 
growth of liberal opinions, and to render it impolitic, if not dangerous, for a, 
man to avow himself a dissenter from the new-fangled Calvinism now in vogue.'' 
" That they have the disposition and the icill to reduce the whole country to a 
state of religious vassalage, tee entertain not the slightest doubt.'^ 

*' We doubt whether the Inquisitioji ttscif 7Cas more to be dieaded, than thai 
power which does not scruple, even in this free country, to aim at over- 
turning the noble institutiuns of our people, by an appeal to the votes of a reli- 
gious majority." " Tlie Orthodox clergy are too generally spiritual lords, 
grasping at poicer, a7id ruling the churches icith a rod of iron." 

*' We published, some months since, a few remarks on an attempt to form 'a 
Christian party in politics' — in other words, to unite church and state, and bring 
all the affairs of the country under clerical influence. That this bold design 
has been formed, there can be little doubt ; and we have reason to fear that th& 
abettors and promoters of the plan are making more progress towards its accom- 
plishment than is generally believed."i 

In the same paper, the Orthodox are charged with having " an 
insatiable thirst ofpower^^ — with " aiming at an uncontrolled noay 
in church and state" — and with having formed " a bold but deep 

LAID PLOT AGAINST OUR POLITICAL AS WELL AS OUR CHRISTIAN 

LIBERTIES. Aug. 23, 1828. In September, 1828, a series of 
numbers, headed " the conspiracy," were published in the 
Register, in which the Orthodox are charged with having 
conspired against the peace and order of the churches. Again, 
" the self-styled Orthodox" are charged with " secret plots and 
conspiracies against the peace and liberty of the church and state.^^ 
Oct. 4ih 1828. And again, " It is important that the religious 
public should be apprized of the scheme now in train to effect a union 
between church and state.'''' Nov. 22, 1828. 

And, to add more, the Rev. Bernard Whitman of Waltham as- 
sures us, in his Artillery Election sermon, that " many individuals 
in certain sects (referring doubtless to the Orthodox) are making 
the attempt to unite church and state ; and that we have the evi- 
dence of this in their own writings.'''' 

Will the reader now turn back, and review these multifarious 
accusations. The Orthodox part of the community, and more 
especially the clergy, are here charged with ' aiming at Ecclesias- 
tical tyranny ;' — with reviving ' a spirit of intolerance' like that 
which led to ' the murder of Servetus ;' — with ' treacherously com- 
bining to abridge and destroy our religious liberties ;' — with design- 
ing to form a powerful conspiracy to crush the growth of liberal 
opinions;' — with wishing ' to reduce the whole country to a state 
of religious vassalage ;' — with being unwilling that ' any man, should 

* Vol. V. pp. 279, 298, 505. 

t Numbers for Oci. 27, 1827 ; Jan. 12, 1828 j March 15, 1828 ; and June 7, 1828. 



6 Review of 

vote in civil concerns, unless he is a church member ;' — with 
* making a thousand efforts to restore a tyranny over the minds of 
laymen ;'- — with * grasping at power, and ruling the churches with 
a rod of iron ;' — with ' making an attempt to unite church and 
state,' and having ' a scheme now in train' to effect that object ; — 
and, again, with ' forming the bold design to unite church and state, 
and making more progress towards its accomplishment than is gen- 
erally believed ; — with wishing to ' overthrow the institutions by 
which the State is upheld, in order to erect on their ruins' an odi- 
ous Ecclesiastical power ; — and, again, with * aiming, in this free 
country, to overturn the noble institutions of our people.' " There 
is to be a combination," we are told, " among the most powerful 
sects TO SEIZE THE CIVIL POWER ; and the use they may hereafter 
make of it is to be sought in the calamitous history of Christendom 
for the last fifteen hundred years." 

Of a piece with these various accusations, and of a character to 
be grouped and considered with them, are those alleged in the 
writings of Dr. Channing, to which public attention was called in 
the Letter of Mr. Stuart. The Orthodox are charged, in these 
writings, with ' defamation and persecution' — a ' persecution which 
breathes venom from its lips, and secredy blasts what it cannot 
openly destroy.' They are said to have forged ' chains, which 
eat more deeply into the soul than those of iron,' and to have es- 
tablished, ' an espionage of bigotry, as effectual to close our lips 
and chill our hearts, as an armed and hundred-eyed police.' They 
have * combined to cover with reproach whoever may differ from 
themselves, to drown the free expression of opinion by denuncia- 
tions of heresy, and to strike terror into the multitude by joint and 
perpetual menace.' ^ This Protestant liberty, it is said, is, in one 
respect, more irritating than Papal bondage. It mocks as well as 
enslaves us. It talks to us courteously, whilst it rivets our chains.' 
They (the Orthodox) * menace with ruin the Christian who listens 
to opinions different from their own, and brand these opinions with 
the most terrifying epithets, for the purpose of preventing candid 
inquiry into their truth.' They have ' menaced our long established 
form of Congregational church government, and attempted to intro- 
duce tribunals unknown to our churches, for the very purpose, that 
the supposed errors and mistakes of ministers and private Christians 
may be tried and punished as heresies, that is, as crimes."* Such is 

* In this last sentence, Dr. Channing refers to the proposal for consociating the church- 
es, which was agitated in tlie General Associa'ion of Massachusetts in 1815. This sub- 
ject was fully considered in our number for November, 1830. The Article then pub- 
lished will be found in the Appendix, Letter A. 

Mr Whitman complains of J'rofessor Stuart for bringing forward this charge of Dr. C. 
as one recently made, and relating to the present state of thing-s, whereas it was made in 
1815, and refers to events existing at that tune. But Professor Stuart says expressly, after 
having quoted this among the other charges of Dr. C, "Most of them are not the hasty 
effusions of moments when excitement was urging on the thoughts and the pen, but they 
are declarations rewc?«crf and re-prthlished to the world after a series of years." 

p. n. 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 7 

a specimen of the accusations which have been pouring forth against 
Orthodox Christians, almost in one continuous stream, for the last 
fifteen years. And who are these Orthodox Cliristians ? Who 
are these aspiring, intolerant, tyrannical and traitorous Orthodox 
clergymen, who have conspired against the liberties of both church 
and state, and are wishing to overthrow the free institutions of 
their country ? We appeal to this community for an answer. We 
ask no special indulgence to be shown to the characters or the frail- 
ties of Orthodox clergymen ; but we do ask, and we are wil- 
ling those among whom we live should answer for us, whether a 
fair proportion of this proscribed class of men are not distinguished 
for their piety and usefulness ; and whether, in point of intelligence, 
integrity, and an exemplary attention to their appropriate duties, 
tliey may not, as a body, compare with any other class of our cit- 
izens ? And who are those who dare accuse them of such abomi- 
nable crimes ? Are they the debased, the profane, the vicious, the 
profligate ? Yes; these uniformly hate and asperse the Orthodox ; 
but men of this stamp are not alone. They are kept in counte- 
nance by others of better cloth. The charges we have quoted are 
from the pens of learned civilians, and Reverend clergymen — of 

the Hon. • , and the Hon. , of Dr. Channing, 

the Rev. Bernard Whitman, etc. etc. — men who walk at large, and 
hold up their heads, in face of that community, who have heard 
their accusations against many of our most worthy and useful citi- 
zens. 

But it is time that we look more closely to these accusations, 
and ascertain definitely to what they amount. 

1. The Orthodox are here charged with being the combined and 
determined enemies of religious freedom. They are ' spiritual ty- 
rants,' ' conspirators' against liberty, forging ' chains more terrible 
than those of iron,' ' menacing with ruin' all those who differ from 
them, and ' ruling the churches' in the most oppressive manner. 

2. They are charged with indulging a spirit of persecution, — a 
* persecution which breathes venom from its lips, and secretly blasts 
what it cannot openly destroy.' 

3. The Orthodox are further charged with * an insatiable thirst 
of power.' They are said to be ' grasping at power,' and ^ aiming 
at an uncontrolled sway in church and state.' 

4. The Orthodox have * formed the bold design to unite church 
and state, and have made more progress towards its accomplish- 
ment than is generally believed.' 

5. The Orthodox are charged with being traitors to their coun- 
try. * They would overthrow the institutions by which the state is 
upheld.' * There is to be a combination among the most powerful 
sects to seize the civil power,' &c. 

Such are some of the charges of Unitarians in Massachusetts 



8 Review of 

against the Orthodox. In reducing them to particulars, so as to 
present them in a tangible form, we are not conscious of exhibiting 
them in a stronger light than the language of those who propagate 
them will warrant. Indeed, in some respects, their coloring is ev^en 
higher than our own. 

In view of these various and heavy accusations, with v^^hich Mr. 
Whitman must have been well acquainted, he has volunteered his 
services in aid of Dr. Channing and his brethren — whether by their 
particular request or not, we are unable to say — certainly, as the 
event has shown, with the particular approbation of some of them. 
In regard to the object of his work, and its intended bearing on the 
charges before us, only two suppositions can be made. He either 
designed to support these charges, or he did not. If he designed 
to support them, has he done it ? This is the first question, and it 
obviously is one deserving very serious consideration. The char- 
ges are before the public in plain black and white English, and so 
(according to this supposition) are the main facts relied on to sup- 
port them. Let us pause a htde, and compare the one with the 
other. 

The Orthodox are charged, as we have shown, with ' an insatia- 
ble thirst of power,' both civil and ecclesiastical — with designing 
and laboring ' to unite church and state' — and with being traitors to 
their country. They are ' combining to seize the civil power,' 
and ' would overthrow the free institutions of the state.' These 
are not all the charges presented above, but they are the principal 
ones, involving (if true) the greatest criminality, and to which, of 
course, the chief importance should be attached. Are the facts 
and considerations adduced by Mr. Whitman (should we even ad- 
mit the correctness of his statements) sufficient to support them ? 

He urges in his first Letter, that we have creeds, and that we 
make an improper use of them. But do we use them as instru- 
ments by which ' to seize the civil power,' and ' overthrow the in- 
stitutions of the state ?' This is the point now in question, and this 
our author does not seem to have touched. — Our " ministerial in- 
tercourse,^^ it is also said, is faulty. And suppose it is. Does this 
go ' to unite church and state !' Or is it treason ! ! — But we 
have erected, or attempted to erect, " Ecclesiastical iribunals.^^ 
There are " Consociations" in Connecticut ; and we have in Mas- 
sachusetts *' Ecclesiastical Councils," and " Ministerial Associa- 
tions," and " Conferences of churches," which, it is alleged, have 
not always done as they ought. Therefore, we ' are grasping at 
power,' and mean ' to overthrow the free institutions' of our coun- 
try ! ! — Again, the Orthodox are frequently ' establishing new 
churches,^ and do not always proceed in a manner to please so dis- 
creet a man as Mr. Whitman. Alas ! we are traitors, then, — 'Or 
else, in the march of some men's minds, their logic does not keep 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 9 

pace with their * evil surmisings.' — We are also in the habit of 
* denouncing^ Unitarians. We really think they are in essential 
error, and we have the honesty to say so. But how this 
proves our Insatiable ambition, or our traitorous designs, we are 
not informed. — It is moreover alleged (for the proofs are numer- 
ous as well as strong) that the Orthodox sometimes misrepresent 
the Unitarians, and ' withold patronage' from them, and even pray 
for them. Now all this may be true, for aught we shall here show 
to the contrary, as we are not now contesting our author's state- 
ments, but examining his logic. Suppose it is true : We have yet 
to learn the bearing it has upon the charges of grasping ambition, 
or of bloody treason. 

It will be said, perhaps, that Mr. W. did not design to prove the 
charges here brought forward — that this was no part of his object 
— and consequently his statements and reasonings could not be ex- 
pected to bear upon them. But if Mr. W. did not design to prove 
these charges, where is the proof of them ? They certainly are 
weighty charges ; they have been publicly made ; they stand in 
indelible lines on the pages of standard Unitarian publications ; 
and if it is admitted that Mr. W. did not design to prove them, 
and has not proved them, then we call for proof. As a part of 
the implicated Orthodox community, we demand it. Some men 
may think to pass over the quotations we have made as mere rhe- 
torical flourishes, designed to give edge and piquancy to a few 
closing sentences, but never intended or expected to be interpreted 
strictly. But those against whom they are directed are the proper 
judges in the case, and verily they deem them of more serious con- 
sequence. It is no light thing to be accused before the public, 
year after year, of some of the foulest, blackest crimes ; nor is it 
unreasonable, after so long forbearance, that our accusers are put, 
upon the task of proof ; and if, after the desperate efforts of Mr. W. 
it still be said, that no attempt at proving some of their most griev- 
ous allegations against us has yet been made, then we demand that 
it he made forthwith. We call upon the conductors of the Christ- 
ian Examiner to prove that " there is to be a combination among 
the most powerful sects to seize the civil power," and that the Or- 
thodox are wishing to ' overthrow the institutions of the state.' We 
call upon the Editor of the Christian Register and his contributors 
to prove, that the Orthodox are " aiming at an uncontrolled sway 
in church and state," and have formed " a bold but deep-laid plot 
against our political as well as our Christian liberties." We call 
upon the Rev. Bernard Whitman, and others who have uttered 
the same scandal, to prove that " many individuals" among us 
" are making the attempt to unite church and state, and that they 
have the evidence of this in our own writings."* The demand here 

* The Rev. A.Ballou, Editor of the Independent Messenger, a new Universalist paper, 
speaking on this subject, says, " Let no man suppose that we intend to embark in that 

2 



10 Review of 

made is certainly reasonable ; it must commend itself, as such, to 
this community ; and let there be no wincing or flinching on the 
part of those to whom it is addressed. You have charged the Or- 
thodox with certain high crimes and misdemeanors ; prove your 
charges, gentlemen ; — or retract them ; — or consent to stand before 
the public as false accusers and calumniators. 

We have as yet considered only a part of the charges which 
have been preferred against the Orthodox. Others remain, less 
gross and palpable, which, perhaps, may not be so readily disposed 
of. It will be insisted, doubtless, that in the * use we make of creeds,' 
in our 'Ministerial intercourse,' our Ecclesiastical tribunals,' he, 
he, we have shown ourselves the determined enemies of religious 
freedom, and have manifested even a persecuting spirit, ft will 
appear, however, on examination, that were we to admit the cor- 
rectness of no small part of Mr. Whitman's statements (which we 
do not admit) we have done no more than is perfectly consistent 
with our religious principles, our liberty, and rights. 

We certainly have the right to study the Scriptures for ourselves, 
to form our opinions in view of them, and to speak and act agreea- 
bly to these opinions, so long as we do not interfere with the rights 
and liberties of others. Mr. W. has no more right to think for us, 
than we for him — to prescribe and dictate our opinions, than we 
his. Suppose, then, that after long and careful attention to the 
Scriptures, we satisfy ourselves of the correctness of the Orthodox 
faith. We believe, that the Scriptures contain and teach the doc- 
trines of the Trinity, of Divine sovereignty, of human depravity, of 
the atonement, of regeneration by the special influences of the holy 
Spirit, of justification by faith, of the perseverance of saints, of a 
general judgement and of eternal retribution. Have we not a right 
so to believe ? Have we not a right to retain and cherish our hon- 
est convictions in regard to these most important subjects ? And 
if we have a right so to believe, have we not a right to sum up our 
belief on paper, and form a written confession of our faith ? And 
if we find two, three, or half a dozen, who have come to the same 
conclusions with ourselves, have we not a right to associate, on the 

clamorous ci-usade, whose legions under pretence of preventing a '^ union of Church and 
State," denounce all the religious associations and institutions of our country as so many 
engines oi priestcraft invented to demolish our rights. By those crusaders it would seem 
that the priest-hood is regarded as a den of treasonable conspirators, and religious move- 
ments as so many certain indications of the success of their iniquitous intrigues. Hence 
they have raised a censorious outcry, which in our humble opinion ought not to be coun- 
tenanced by any friend of civil and religious order. We heard this outcry (at first with 
alarm, afterwards with indifference, ana finally with disgust) till by scrutinizing the con- 
duct of those who take the lead in it, the conviction has forced itself upon us, that there is 
among them as much ambition, selfishness, craft, persecuting bigotry, and radical maligni- 
ty to civil and religious liberty, in proportion to numbers, as among those whom they ac- 
cuse. They, too, need watching, lest while they cry "thief! thief!" to turn our suspi- 
cions upon others, they make booty of our gold, and leave us in poverty to pine away 
upon the bitter morsels of dear bought experience. God preserve us from State religion, 
and above all from 8tate irreligion ! 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 1 1 

basis of a common faith, and constitute a society, a church ? If 
we are pleased thus to associate, and do it in a peaceable manner, 
who shall hinder us ? Have we not as much right to associate with 
a creed, as others have to do the same without one ? May not we 
as properly dictate to them on the subject as they to us ? And 
when we have associated, on the express understanding of a com- 
mon faith, suppose one of our number widely departs from this 
faith; have we not a right to call him to an account? And if he 
chooses to exercise his freedom in wandering from us, and viola- 
ting the express principles of the association, have we not a right 
to exercise our freedom, in excluding him, or withdrawing from 
him ? Do not all voluntary associations for civil purposes consider 
themselves entitled to treat delinquent members after this manner? 
And why should religious associations be an exception ? We have 
indeed, no right to injure our erring brother, in his person, property, 
or good name, any further than to call things by their right names, 
and tell the truth about him when occasion requires it ; and who 
shall deny us the hberty to do this ? 

But it will be said, ' If you form your church with a creed, then 
all who cannot adopt the creed will be kept out of it.' And what 
if they are ? Is there no church in the world, except ours ? If 
persons cannot agree to walk with us, then let them seek those with 
whom they can walk. Or if they cannot find any with whom they 
are agreed, then let them be content to walk alone. 

It will also be objected, that by excluding the member who wan- 
ders from us ; we render him unpopular, excite suspicion, and in- 
flict an injury. This may be so, or it may not be, according to 
the character of our association, and the circumstances under which 
he is excluded. But if he does receive injury, whose fault is it? 
The society, surely, are not to blame ; and if he is a reasonable 
man, he will never blame them. 

Suppose, again, that having, in the exercise of our freedom, 
adopted the Orthodox faith, we regard it, not only as true, buj as 
oi great importance. We assuredly do thus regard it, nor can we 
perceive that, in so doing, we exceed our religious liberties and 
rights. But here is a man who, in the exercise of his freedom, 
adopts a system the opposite of ours, and disbelieves and derides 
all that seems to us so precious ; what now shall we think of him ? 
Can we avoid regarding him as in a great and dangerous error ? 
And if called to express an opinion respecting him, have we not 
a right to say what we think ? If he is a Unitarian, have we not a 
right to say he is a Unitarian ? Or if he is a Universalist, a Deist, 
or an Atheist, have we not a right to say so ? But this, we are 
told is a " denunciation," and in pursuing such a course, we in- 
flict an injury. And suppose we do; how is the injury to be avoid- 



12 Review of 

ed ? Must we shut our eyes upon evidence, repress conviction, 
and thus sacrifice our own freedom of thought, for fear that, 
in exercising it, we shall come to the knowledge of the truth 
respecting the opinions of our neighbor ? Or if, having formed an 
opinion respecting him, we are called upon to express it, shall we 
tell a lie rather than the truth, through fear that the truth will in- 
jure him ? 

Again ; in the exercise of our freedom, we not only adopt the 
Orthodox faith, but come to regard it as the only true faith ; so 
that those who essentially depart from it we cannot think are, in the 
strictest and best sense of the term. Christians. Still they 
call themselves Christians, and claim our fellowship. But, in con- 
sistency with our principles and rights, can we grant it ? They 
have as good a right to their honest opinions, as we have to ours. 
They may think of themselves as they please, and call themselves 
by what name they please. But they have no right to dictate to 
us what we shall think of them, or what we shall call them. They 
have no right to insist upon enjoying our fellowship, when, in con- 
sistency with our principles, we cannot grant it. 

The attentive reader will perceive, in view of the foregoing re- 
marks, that no small part of what Mr. W. charges upon the Ortho- 
dox as persecution and oppression, and altogether inconsistent with 
" free inquiry and religious liberty," is but the necessary result of 
their religious liberty. They could not have their liberty, and do 
otherwise. They certainly have the right, as much so as Mr. W. 
or any other man, to adopt their own religious principles, and to 
act according to them ; and it will be found, on examination, that 
most of the charges urged against them in his first Letter (bating the 
false coloring and inaccuracies of statement) are the natural and 
inevitable result of their honest principles. This, indeed, is ac- 
knowledged by the conductors of the Unitarian Advocate. 

" We only say, that they (the Orthodox) are the advocates of a system of doc- 
trin£9 which, pushed to its legitimate consequences, is unfriendly to Christian 
liberty." — " We say that the spirit of their system is wholly exclusive ; that all 
its tendencies are exclusive ; that wherever it is acted upon, wherever its influ- 
ences remain unobstructed, there Christian liberty falls a sacrifice." pp. 121, 122. 

Here, the blame of our alleged exclusiveness and intolerance is 
laid wholly to our system. But according to this account of it, 
how can we do otherwise .'' We verily believe the Bible to be the 
word of God, we study it for ourselves, and we can find no other 
system there. So long as we have a right to think for ourselves, 
we must adopt this system ; and so long as we have a right to be 
honest and consistent persons, we must act according to it. 

But it will be said, * You have no right to exercise your religious 
freedom in a way to infringe upon the liberties of others.' Nor do 
we. They have the same right as we to think for themselves, 



Letters on Relig-ious Liheriy. 1 3 

and if, in the exercise of this right, they become Unitarians, or 
Universalists, or Deists, or Atheists ; so be it. To their own Mas- 
ter, ihey stand or fall. We will not hurt an hair of their heads. 
To be sure, if called to express an opinion respecting them, we 
must tell the truth, as we understand it ; and if required to extend 
to them the hand of Christian fellowship, we must act according to 
our convictions of duly ; but we will lay no restrictions upon their 
freedom of inquiry and opinion, nor, while they demean themselves 
as peaceable citizens, will we consent that they shall suffer any 
more than the necessary consequences of the principles they have 
imbibed. 

In laying the blame of our alleged intolerance to our principles, 
Unitarians doubdess mean to represent that our principles are dan- 
gerous to Christian liberty. But it will appear, on examination, that 
they are no more dangerous than their own, and that they present 
no greater impediments in the way of free inquiry than their own. 
It may not suit the policy of Unitarians to have a written, formal 
creed ; but they have a creed, as really as the Orthodox. In 
other words, there are points of belief, or disbelief, by which they 
are known and distinguished from other religious denominations. 
Now suppose one of their ministers departs essendally from these 
points, either one way or the other, would he not be hable to suffer 
at all on account of his opinions ^ Suppose Mr. W., for instance 
should become Orthodox, and should preach the Orthodox faith 
with as much zeal and pertinacity as he now does the Unitarian 
faith; would his people hear him, — or would they dismiss him?* 
Or suppose, in the exercise of his religious freedom, he should be- 
come an avowed Atheist ; would his people hear him, or would 
they dismiss him ? And would his ministerial brethren, in this case^ 
continue to him their fellowship, or would they withdraw it } 
Would the ministerial Association to which he belongs retain 
him, or would they exclude him ^ Can Unitarians answer these 
questions in the only way in which they would think proper to an- 
swer them, without admitting that their views and principles on the 
subject of rehgious liberty are no more liberal or tolerant, than 
those of the Orthodox, of which they complain ? 

The principles on which Unitarians /owwf^ their complaints of the 

* It wll be recollected that the predecessor of Mr. W., a worthy Orthodox Minister, 
was dismissed from this people,, solely (as they at the time certified) on account of his 
opinions. The following is a copy of a note sent to him after the society had voted his 
dismission : 

Reverend Sir, 

By vote of the second Religious Society at their meeting- last evening-, Resolved, that 
the second Religious Society in Wallham cheerfully and willingly declare, that they ap- 
prove of the moral conduct of Rev. Sewall Harding, as the minister of said society 5 and 
as their minister he has preached, with faithfulness and an earnest desire to be useful, the 
Gospel, agreeably to his faith and creed j and that the only difference subsisting between 

tha society and him is an honest difference of religious sentiments. The above is an 

extract from the records of the Society. Thomas Gorham, P. Clerk. 



14 Review of 

Orthodox are entirely different from those on which they themselves 
act in relation to some other denominations. In order that the for- 
mer class of principles may be carried consistently out, a state of 
society must exist, in which one religious opinion shall be deemed 
as good, as reputable, and as safe as another, so that a man 
may turn this way or that, may believe more, or less, or nothing, 
without any fear or hazard of consequences. Now in regard to 
such a state of society, it is not enough to say that it is undesirable, 
and in the nature of things impossible, it is a state to which Unita- 
rians are as little ready to come as any of their neighbors : For, as 
observed already, they act on a very different set of principles in 
relation to some other sects, from those on which they found their 
complaints of Orthodox exclusiveness and intolerance. They 
complain of the Orthodox, because they will not exchange pulpits 
with them. Why will not they exchange with the professed Uni- 
versalist? They complain of us for encroaching on their liberty 
and rights, because we represent their views of doctrine as errone- 
ous and unsafe. And why do they encroach, in the same way, on 
the liberty and riglns, of the Deist and the Atheist, by represent- 
ing their views of doctrine as erroneous and unsafe ? 

The amount of it all is, if we understand it, that Unitarians 
would have their own principles in good repute, at any rate. No 
one must suspect or question them. No one must open his mouth 
or lift a finger to oppose or discredit them. We cannot express 
an opinion of their publications, or sing a doxology in our own 
churches, as Mr. W. insists (pp. 43, 86,) without affording them 
just ground of complaint. But while they claim so high immunities 
for themselves, they are far from being willing to grant the same to 
others. To say nothing of the censures perpetually cast upon the 
principles and the publications of Evangelical Christians, those sects 
which Unitarians regard as beneath themselves on the general 
scale of unbelief, complain as loudly, and with quite as much rea- 
son, of their exclusiveness and illiberality, as they do of the same 
things on the part of the Orthodox. 

We have gone thus at length into an examination of this subject, 
not merely with a view to answer Mr. Whitman. Had this been 
our only object, we could have been content to despatch it in 
{e^^ words. But as we had occasion to say something on the sub- 
ject — a subject important in itself, and almost continually misun- 
derstood — we thought it entitled to a degree of consideration which 
otherwise would not have been necessary. 

Hitherto, we have forborne to call in question the correctness of 
Mr. Whitman's statements. It will be necessary now to return to 
his Letters, and examine more particularly what is there alleged. 
We shall call attention, in the first place, to a class of misrepresen- 
tations, which, as the most charitable supposition we can make, we 
are inclined to attribute to the author's ignorance. 



Letters on Religious Liberty, 15 

Under this head may be ranked the views which he takes of the 
Orthodox creeds, or confessions of faith. He uniformly represents 
these as our ^'standards of religious truth, and" charges us with 
using them ' instead of the Bible,' and even with ' placing them be- 
fore the Bible.' But this, he might have known, is altogether an 
erroneous statement. There is not an Orthodox church or body 
of men in the world, who have adopted a confession of faith, who 
would admit that this was (in his sense of the terms) their 
" standard of truth." The Bible, and this alone, if they are Protes- 
tants, is their standard. The word of God they have sought and 
studied for themselves ; and having arrived at what they believe 
to be its true meaning, they take the liberty — the same liberty 
which Mr. W. has to write a letter or a sermon — to sum up this 
meaning on paper, and form a creed. This creed is now the au- 
thorized profession or confession of their faith, but not, in his sense, 
the standard of it. It sets forth what they believe to be the doc- 
trines of the Bible, but is never allowed to take the place of the 
Bible, and much less to stand before it. 

An individual, having satisfied himself as to the meaning of the 
Bible and formed his creed, perhaps wishes to ascertain whether 
the views of certain other persons respecting the Bible accord with 
his own ; in what way shall this point be determined ? To present 
them the Bible for this purpose, and ask them whether they agreed 
to that, w^ould be preposterous; because the question at issue be- 
tween him and them, respects not their reception of the Bible, but 
the sense which they put upon it. And we know of no way in 
which he can settle this question, but by stating to them his own 
views, and requesting them to state theirs ; or, in other words, by 
exhibiting his creed, and ascertaining whether they assent to it. It 
is for this purpose that churches, and some other religious bodies, 
present their creeds to those who are to be received as members ; — 
not that their creeds are the sources of their faith, or the standards 
of it; — not that they use them instead of the Bible, or advance 
them before it ; — but that they may ascertain whether those who 
propose to be admitted as members have come to the same under- 
standing of the Bible as themselves, and whether they can pleasant- 
ly and profitably associate on the basis of a common faith. 

The inhabitants of these United States have .all assented to the 
Federal Constitution ; but unhappily all do not understand this 
important instrument alike. There have been long and learned de- 
bates, and our country is now divided into parties, on questions grow- 
ing out of the different constructions which are put on the provisions 
of the Constitution. In these circumstances, our citizens do not 
think it enough to ask respecting the candidate for office under the 
general government, ' Does he agree to the Constitution ?^ They 
deem it important further to inquire * How does he understand the 



16 Review of 

Constitution? What construction does he put upon it?' Or, in 
other words, ^ What is his political creed ?' For a similar reason, 
and with at least as much propriety, Christians wish to know res- 
pecting the candidate for membership with them in the same church, 
not only whether he agrees to the Bible, but • what construction 
he puts upon the Bible, 

Mr. W. represents our creeds as inconsistent with that first prin- 
ciple of Protestantism, The sufficiency of Scripture. But, without 
going atjarge into this subject, our author will doubtless admit that 
the early Protestants understood the main principles by which they 
were governed ; and if he had studied their history, he would have 
learned, that they were not more remarkable for their adherence 
to the Scriptures, than they were for the number and particularity 
of their creeds. The Augsburg Confession, prepared by the joint 
labors of Luther and Melancthon, was drawn up the same year, 
(1529,) in which the memorable protest was entered which gave 
to the united dissenters from Rome the appellation of Protestants. 
All the early Protestants, without excepting the Socinians at Ra- 
cow, had their confessions of faith, and never once dreamed 
that, in preparing and adopting them, they were putting them 
into the place of the Bible, or advancing them before it, or detrac- 
ting at all from the sufficiency of Scripture as a rule of faith. So 
numerous indeed were their confessions, that (as Mather relates) 
" they were, by the Papists, denominated, Confessionists." 

Another subject, of which Mr. W. betrays the most lamentable 
ignorance, is the doctrine of election. He introduces it in a variety 
of instances, and always in such terms and connexions as clearly 
shows, either that he entirely misunderstands it, or wilfully misrep- 
resents it. The following may be taken as an example : 

" In your creed the doctrine of election is fully declared. This teaches that 
God has chosen a certain, limited number for heaven, and foreordained the re- 
mainder to an everlasting hell. It also teaches that the number of the elect is 
definite, so that neither more nor less can be saved. Now if you say, the num- 
ber of the elect is not definite, you give up the Calvinistic doctrine of election. 
And if you allow that the number is definite, then you must admit, that not one 
soul more will be saved, by the establishment of your feeble churches. No; 
none but the elect can be saved, and they will be received to heaven at any 
rate ; and none but the reprobate can be damned, and they must go to hell in 
spite of Orthodox exertions." 

Were Mr. W. to propound such sentiments to some of the schol- 
ars in our Sabbath Schools, they would tell him at once, that where 
the end is determined, the means are also determined ; that the 
latter are made as sure as the former, and to precede the former ; 
so that should the one fail, the other could not possibly be realized. 
They might also tell him, that the salvation of men is no more de- 
termined in the general plan and purpose of God, than all other 
events ; and that he might as well have said, If my "two Letters 
to the Rev. Moses Stuart on the subject of Religious Liberty " are 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 17 

to he published, they certainly will be published, whether I put pen 
to paper or not, as to have said, " If we are of the elect we shall 
be saved,. do what we may ; but if we are of the reprobate, we 
must be damned, do what we can." p. 98. 

Mr. W. exhibits evidence of the depth and accuracy of his his- 
torical researches in the account which he gives us of the princi- 
pal Reformers. He places Zuingle "the third in the order of 
time," whereas he was, in Aict, the first. The views of this Re- 
former, he says, "were exceedingly liberal, not differing essentially, 
except in one or two points, from the liberal Christians of the pre- 
sent period." But IMosheim says that " this illustrious Reformer," 
having been supposed to entertain " false notions relating to the 
Divinity of Christ, the efficacy of the divine word, original sin, 
and some other parts of the Christian doctrine, cleared himself (rom 
the greatest part of these accusations with the most triumphant evi- 
dence, and in such a manner as appeared entirely satisfactory even to 
Luther himself^ Vol. iv. p. 74. 

Passing over such names as Bucer, Bullinger, CEcolampadius, 
Carolstadt, Knox, Cranmer, and a host of others, he assigns the 

fifth and last place in the goodly company of Reformers to • 

Michael Servetus ! 'Is Saul also among the prophets ?' "We have 
no wish to detract aught from the real merits of the unhappy Ser- 
vetus, w-hatever they may have been. We are not aware, howev- 
er, that any respectable, unbiassed historian has ever ranked him 
among the Reformers. Mosheim, who had no prejudices against 
Servetus, and who had studied his history more than any man nov7 
living,* describes his character and his theology in the following 
terras : 

" The religious system that Servetus had struck out of a wild and irregular 
fancy, was singular in the highest degree. His peculiar notions concerning the 
universe, the nature of God and the nature of things were strange and chimer- 
ical. He took it into his head that the true and genuine doctrine of Christ had 
been entirely lost, even before the Council of Nice ; and that he himself had 
received a commission from above to reveal anew this divine doctrine, and to 
explain it to mankind. His notions with respect to the Supreme Being, and a 
Trinity of persons in the Godhead, were obscure and chimerical, beyond all 
measure." Eccl. Hist. vol. iv. p. 475, 

Speaking of the " doctrines of the Reformation," Mr. W. as- 
serts : 

" On those points in which they differed from the Catholics, they had very 
little agreement among themselves. They were agreed in the two great prin- 
ciples of Protestantism ; in salvation without human merit ; and in certain prac- 
tical abuses of the mother church. Beyond these, they came to no agreement 
on any important topic which they discussed." 

Now this representation (unless we reckon the crude notions of 
Servetus among the doctrines of the reformation) the learned gen- 

*In addition to his general history, Mosheim published a particular and elaborate ac 
count of Servetus. 

3 



18 Review of 

tieman ought to have known is very far from the truth. That the 
Reformers differed in their explanations of certain doctrines, and 
in their views of some of the externals of religion, and that in their 
controversies one with another they often failed to exhibit a beco- 
ming degree of courtesy and affection, is certain ; but that, beyond 
three or four points, " they came to no agreement on any import- 
ant topic which they discussed," is what Mr. W. had no reason or 
authority for asserting. The Protestants represented in the diet at 
Augsburg were all agreed in the confession of faith there present- 
ed. The Helvetic Confession, drawn up in 1566, was assented 
to, not only by the Swiss churches, but by those of England, Scot- 
land, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, and many in 
Germany." * We have now before us a Harmony of Protestant 
Confessions, eleven in number, published at Geneva in 1631, from 
which it appears that in all those doctrines now considered essen- 
tial by Orthodox Christians in this country and in Europe, there 
was a very general and happy agreement among the Reformers of 
the sixteenth century. ^' The fabulous music of the spheres," says 
Mather, " cannot be supposed more delicious, than that harmoni/ 
which is to be seen in the confessions of the reformed churches, 
which have been pubhshed together." Magnalia, vol. ii. p. 156. 

" You will ask," says Mr. W. " if the Reformers were not agreed in the great 
doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the atonement, the utter depravity 
of human nature, unconditional election, endless punishment, and the like. 
These, my dear Sir, were not the doctrines of the Reformation. They are the 
very doctrines which were not reformed. They were not allowed to be ex- 
amined. No ; they are really and literally the doctrines of the Catholic church ; 
for more or less of them had been actually voted into her creed by the holding 
up of priestly hands, at different times and under various forms ; and those 
which were not so introduced, had been invented and advocated by individual 
members of her communion, long before the Reformation." 

Does not our learned author know better than to assert, that the 
doctrine of atonement, for instance, as held by Protestants, is a 
* doctrine of the Catholic church?' We believe that "Christ was 
once offered to bear the sins of many ;" the Catholic believes that 
he is offered, as a propitiatory sacrifice, in every mass performed in 
the church. We regard the atonement of Christ as the sole and 
sufficient foundation of hope ; the Catholic thinks to add to this 
foundation, by merits, and penances, and supererogatory perform- 
ances in abundance. And so, instead of the Protestant doctrine 
of " endless punishment " for all who die in impenitence, has Mr. 
W. never heard of the Catholic distinction between venal and mor- 
tal sins ; and between the fires of purgatory, and those that never 
shall be quenched .? He says that the doctrines he has mentioned 
" are really and literally the doctrines of the Catholic Church." 
But has he never heard of the long and angry disputes in that 

* Sylloge Confessionium, p. xiv. 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 1 

church, between the Jesuits and Jansenists, and other religious or- 
ders, respecting some of these very points, showing that they are 
not, and cannot be, the established and indubitable doctrines of that 
infallible body ? And besides, has he yet to learn that the doctrines 
of the ReforiTiers are those doctrines which the Reformers believ- 
ed, and not merely those which were peculiar to them ? The uni- 
ty and spirituality of the divine nature, the natural and moral per- 
fections of God, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the 
body, the general judgement, the eternal happiness of the righteous, 
— all these are as truly the doctrines of the Reformers — the doc- 
trines of those engaged in promoting the reformation — as though 
they had been held by them exclusively. 

In his account of Calvin, Mr. VV. manifests unaccountable igno- 
rance as well as prejudice. He would make the Reformer answer- 
able for most of the disgraceful things done by the Senate of Ge- 
neva, during his residence in that city. 

" He caused Jerome Bolsec, a French physician, to be banished for his heret- 
ical opinions. He served George Blandrata, an Italian physician, who denied 
Ihe doctrine of the trinity, in a similar manner. His treatment of Sebastian 
Castalio, his friend and regent of the College, a great, learned, and good man, 
was much more severe and unchristian. And his causing the death of Michael 
Servetus has left an indelible stain of disgrace on his character." 

He may yet learn that this Genevese Senate were not so obse- 
quious to the will of Calvin, as he represents ; that he was once 
himself banished by their order; that the very year in which Ser- 
vetus was executed, the enemies of Calvin were a majority in the 
Senate; and that he was obliged to contend with a portion of this 
body during the greater part of his life. Mr. W. admits, howev- 
er, that Calvin did not burn Servetus, and that he was unwilling he 
should be burned — at least, with " green wood." The truth is, 
he was unwilling he should be burned at all. " I desire," says he, 
*'the severity of the punishment to be remitted." "We endeav- 
ored to commute the kind of death, but in vain." "By wishing to 
mitigate the severity of the punishment," says Farelto Calvin, "you 
discharge the office of a friend towards your greatest enemy." 
" That Calvin was the instigator of the magistrates that Servetus 
might be burned," says Turretine, " historians neither anywhere 
affirm, nor does it appear from any consideration. Nay, it is cer- 
tain that he, with the college of Pastors, dissuaded from that kind 
of punishment." 

To show the cruelty and perfidy of Calvin, Mr. W. represents 
Servetus, during the early part of life, as his intimate and confi- 
dential friend. 

" All this time he was in constant correspondence with Calvin. He spoke to 
hira with all that unreserved freedom which is manifested by one devoted friend 
towards another. These familiar and confidential letters were afterwards used 
by Calvin to destroy his correspondent." 



20 Review oj 

Now there is no evidence that Calvin ever savjr Servetus^ ot 
heard of him, until about the year 1534, after the latter had pub- 
lished twice in opposition to the Trinity. They were together at 
this time in Paris, where Servetus challenged Calvin to a public 
disputation. Calvin repaired " to the place appointed," says Be- 
za, " and waited for some time ; but Servetus did not appear, be- 
cause he feared the sight of Calvin." From this period, Servetus 
was frequently thrusting himself upon the notice of Calvin ; and 
by various inquiries and objections, proposed in writing, labored to 
draw him into a dispute. The " familiar and confidential letters " 
spoken of by Mr. W. were chiefly writings of this description — 
communications to which the Reformer had no time or inclination 
to attend, and with which he ought never to have been troubled. 

Mr. W. quotes a letter of Calvin, intimating that if Servetus came 
to Geneva, he ' should not suffer him to escape with life ' — with- 
out suggesting a doubt as to its authenticity — which is not printed 
among his other letters, and which it is improbable he ever wrote. 
He further says, 

" Servetus was finally condemned to be tjurnt alive in a slow fire of green 
wood. And we are informed that his sufferings were excruciating beyond de- 
scription, and lasted more than two hours" 

In the words of his sentence, which now lie at full length before 
us, there is nothing said either of " slow fire," or " green wood ;" 
and the time of his sufferings, which Mr. W. makes " more than 
two hours,*' is stated in Professor Norton's Repository to have been 
"half an hour!" Vol. iii. p. 72. 

In stating the doctrines of Calvin, our learned author is not less 
unfortunate than in giving his history. 

" What,-' says he, "are the grand doctrines of Calvinism ? I will give them 
to you as agreed upon by the large body of Calvinistic divines at the famous 
synod of Dort. I take them as abridged by Daniel Tilenus. "Art. I. That 
God, by an absolute decree, hath elected to salvation a very small number of 
men, without any regard to their faith or obedience whatever ; and secluded 
from saving grace all the rest of mankind, and appointed them by the same de- 
cree, to eternal damnation, without any regard to their infidelity or impeniten 
cy. — Art. II. That Jesus Christ hath not suff'ered death for any other, but for 
those elect only ; having neither had any intent, nor commandment of his Fa- 
ther, to make satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. — Art. III. That by 
Adam's fall his posterity lost their free will, being put to an unavoidable neces- 
sity to do or not to do, whatever they do or do not, whether it be good or evil ; 
being thereunto predestinated by the eternal and effectual secret decree of God. 
— Art. IV. That God to save his elect from the corrupt mass, dotli beget faith 
in them by a power equal to that whereby he created the world and raised up 
the dead ; insomuch that such, unto whom he gives that grace, cannot reject it, 
and the rest, being reprobate, cannot accept it. — Art. V. That such as have 
once received that grace by faith, can never fall from it finally or totally, not- 
withstanding the most enormous sins they can commit." 

" No one," says Mr. W. in the simplicity of his heart — "no one acquainted 
with the writings of Calvin will deny that these are his real sentiments^ 

We will not here stop to inquire into the propriety of going to 
the synod of Dort to learn the sentiments of Calvin, rather than to 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 21 

his own works. It is of more importance to inquire whether this 
abridgement by Tilenus is a fair representation of the synod of 
Dort. And in answer to this inquiry, we appeal to the History of 
the synod of Dort, published by the Rev. Tliomas Scott, author of 
the Commentary on the Bible, but a little while before his deaih. 
Speaking of the abbreviated articles of Tilenus — the same as those 
above quoted — and more particularly of the first of them, this ve- 
nerable man says : 

" 1 have loiiiT been aware that there is ' no new thing under the sun ;' that 
* speaking all manner of evil falsely ' of the disciples of Christ is no exception 
to this rule ; and that misrepresenting and slandering men called Calvinisls has 
been very general ever since the term was invented ; — but I own, I never be- 
fore MET WITH so GROSS, SO BAREFACED, AND INEXCUSABLE A MISREPRESENTA- 
TION AS THIS IN ALL MY STUDIES OF MODERN CONTROVERSY. It CAN ONLY BE 
EqALLED BY THE FALSE TESTIMONY BORNE AGAINST JeSUS AND HIS ApOSTLES, AS 
RECORDED IN HOLY WRIT." 

Daniel Tilenus, in all probability, was about as well qualified to 
abridge the articles of the synod of Dort, as the Rev. Bernard 
Whitman is to write a history of the Orthodox of New England. 

Mr. W. is equally unsuccessful in detailing events connected 
with the early history of this country, as in describing those rela- 
ting to the Reformers. " The third grand, fundamental principle, 
of our Pilgrim fathers," he says, " was the perfect independence 
of every Congregational church.'^ If he means by this that our 
fathers considered every individual church as in all respects inde- 
pendent of the neighboring churches, acknowledging no formal 
connexion with them or responsibility to them, — or if he means 
that our fathers considered and styled themselves Independents ; 
he is greatly mistaken. " The world is much mistaken,^^ says Dr. 
Increase iMather, " in thinking that Congregational churches are 
independent." (Who understood the principles of the Pilgrims 
best. Dr. Mather, or Mr. Whitman ?) " That name has indeed 
been fastened upon them by their adversaries ; but our platform of 
discipline disclaims the name.f And so does our renowned Hook- 
er, in his ' Survey of Church Discipline.' Likewise those famous 
apologists in the assembly at Westminster, Dr. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, 
Mr. Simpson, Mr. Burroughs, and Mr. Bridge say, ^It is a maxira 
to be abhorred, that a single and particular society of men profes- 
sing the name of Christ, should arrogate to themselves an exemp- 

* In illustration of this alleged principle, Mr. W. refers to the rase of the first minister 
of Salem, who was ordained by members of his own church, notwithstanding a deputation 
from the church at Plymouth was present. Two circumstances relating- to this affair, bft 
had not sufficient knowledge or candor to state. The first is^ that Messrs. Higginson and 
Skelton, the persons set apart on this occasion, had both of them been ordained in F.ng* 
land ; so that for them a formal ordination was not necessary. The second, that " Gov. 
Bradford, and other messingcrs from the church of Plymouth, being by cross icinds hin- 
dered from being present in the former part of the service, came in time enough to give 
them the right hand of fellowship." See Prince's Chronology. 

t Chap. ii. sect. 5. " The term, Independent we approve not." 



2^ Review of 

tion from giving an account to, or being censurable by, neighbor- 

ing churches about them.^^ "^ 
Our author asserts again : 

" The very essence of Congregationalism, the single and peculiar character- 
istic which distinguished the Independents + from the Presbyterians, was their 
utter and entire rejection of all authority or jurisdiction of one church over 
another." " There was not in Massachusetts, there never had been, a power to 
call a whole church to account for its opinions." 

It will not be easy to reconcile this quotation with that last made 
from Dr. Mather ; or with the "third way of communion of church- 
es," laid down and explained in the Cambridge Platform, chap. xv. 
sect. 2. One church is here expressly authorized to call another 
church to account for "any public offence ;" to afford admonition ; 
in case of obstinacy, to call in the assistance of neighbour churches ; 
to convene a Council or Synod ; and finally, if satisfaction be not 
gained, to "declare the sentence of non-communion." Under 
this provision, to mention but a single instance, the second church 
in Boston, in 1733, called the first church in Salem to an account, 
and procured "the sentence of non-communion" from about 
twenty churches to be declared against it. After several years, 
the church in Salem penitently acknowledged its errors, and " the 
sentence of non-communion" was taken off. J 

After making extracts from several of the church covenants 
early adopted in Massachusetts, Mr. W. observes, 

"Now you will notice several remarkable circumstances connected with these 
creeds. First, you do not find one peculiarity of orthodoxy in any of them ; — 
nothingbutwhat every Unitarian can heartily subscribe. And this must convince 
you, that they wished to exclude no believer of good morals from their com- 
munion. Secondly, you observe, that our fathers used the words congregation 
and church as synonymous ; as meaning one and the same body. You 
finally remark, how much more anxious these Christians were to bind them- 
selves to a faithful discharge of Christian duty, than to fetter their minds with 
a doctrinal test, or set up a human standard of truth." 

Does Mr. W. really believe that our fathers were averse to a 
public confession of faith ; or that they made no distinction between 
the church and congregation ; or that they would have held com- 
munion with open Unitarians? If so, we sincerely pity his igno- 
rance. Does he not know that immediately after the landing of 
the colonists, churches, bodies in covenant,'^ in distinction from the 
whole assembly of worshippers, were gathered .'' that these church- 
es were very strict in the admission of members, so much so, that 
-complaints of their strictness were repeatedly sent to the parent 

* Order of the Churches, &.c. p. 74. 

t Ignoranlly representing' Independents and Congregationalists as the same. 

X See Dr. Wisner's Historical Sermons, p. 105. 

^ Our fathers sometimes used the word congregation to denote the churchy or body in 
covenant. 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 23 

country ? and that, besides confessions in *' particular cliurclies," 
they, in a few years after the settlementj adopted the Westminster 
Confession for all the cliurclies ? * and as to their willingness to 
liave communion with Unitarians, he may satisfy himself by refer- 
ing to their laws, by which every person, adopting errors of this 
description, and " continuing obstinate therein," was liable to ban- 
ishment. 

Speaking of the unwillingness of Orthodox ministers to exchange 
pulpits with Unitarians, Mr. W. says, " This system of exclusion 
was commenced in Connecticut, as early as 1806," " in reference 
probably to Rev. ]Mr. Sherman, who embraced Unitarianism 
about that period." He seeais to regard what was then done as a 
great and lamentable innovation ; whereas, until that time, a pro- 
fessed Unitarian minister could not be found among the Congrega- 
tionalists of New England. Mr. Sherman's publication, entitled 
*' One God in one Person," the conductors of the Anthology de- 
scribe as '-^ one of the fir&t acts of direct hostility against the Or- 
thodox which has ever been committed on these Western shores." 
Vol. ii. p. 249. It seems then, according to our author's own 
showing, that the refusal to exchange with Unitarians commenced 
here, as soon as there was a professed Unitarian to be refused ; — 
and he will find, as he becomes more acquainted with the history 
of the church, that this conduct on the part of the Orthodox min- 
isters of New England is in strict accordance with the practice of 
such ministers, from the very first century of the Christian era, to 
the present time.f 

Mr. W. says, " that great allowances should be made" for Pro- 
fessor Stuart, and other clergymen among us " who were reared in 
Connecticut," because " the very laws under which they w^ere train- 
ed taught them to regard Unitarianism as a heinous crime." He 
then quotes a paragraph from the old repealed statutes of Connec- 
ticut — which he charitably supposes Mr. Stuart, " Dr. Beecher, 
and the other gentlemen who have been invited from Connecticut 
to teach theology in this Commonwealth, regard as highly comment 
dabW'' — according to which those, w^ho " deny any one of the per- 
sons in the Trinity to be God," are disfranchised. The learned 
gentleman did not know, probably, that much severer laws against 
persons like himself may be found in the statute books of Massa- 
chusetts. The following acts were passed, the first in 1646, and 
the second in 1697, and continued in force, we believe, until the 
adoption of the present state Constitution ; 

" It is therefore ordered and declared by the court, that if any Christian with- 
in this jurisdiction shall go about to subvert and destroy the Christian faith and 

* Mather says, " If the Protestants have been by the Papists called Confessionists. the 
Protestams of New England have, of all, given the most laudable occasion to be called so." 
Magnalia, vol. n. p. 156. 

t See Spirit of the Pilgrims, Vol. i. pp. 287—294. 



24 Review of 

religion, by broaching and maintaining any damnable heresies, as denying 

that Christ gave himself a ransom for our sins, or shall ajfirm that we are not 
justified by his death and righteousness but by the perfections of our own works, 
or shall deny the morality of the fourth commandment, or shall endea- 
vor to seduce others to any of the errors or heresies above mentioned ; every such 
person, continuing obstinate therein, after due means of conviction, shall be 
sentenced to banishment.'" 

" Be it declared and enacted by the lieutenant Governor, Council, and Rep- 
resentatives, convened in general court or assembly, and it is enacted by the 
authority of the same, that if any person shall presume wilfully to blaspheme 
the holy name of God, Father, Son, or Holy Ghost every one offend- 
ing shall be punished by imprisonment, not exceeding six months, and until 
they find sureties f )r their good behavior ; by sitting in the pillory ; by whip- 
ping ; boring though the tongue with a red hot iron ; or sitting upon the gal- 
lows with a rope about their neck ; at the discretion of the court of assize, and 
general gaol delivery, before which the trial shall be, according to the circum- 
stances which may aggravate or alleviate the offence." 

It will be borne in mind tbat these laws were superseded or res- 
cinded by Orthodox legislators, long before Unitarianism had any- 
visible existence in the councils of Massachusetts. 

From some passages in these letters, we fear their author is not 
much better acquainted with his Bible, than he is with history and 
law. The following may be taken as a specimen. 

" I challenge you, or any other man, to produce one passage of holy writ, 
which gives an Orthodox church the right to excommunicate a member for 
heresy, so long as the member makes the Bible his standard of faith, and ex-^ 
hibits a Christian character." 

The apostle Paul does not accuse the Judaizing teachers, whom 
he anathematized, with rejecting the Scriptures, or with immoral 
practices, but with preaching another Gospel. Gal. i. 8. The 
apostle John does not charge those who denied that Jesus Christ 
had come in the flesh, with rejecting the Scriptures, or with any 
wickedness aside from the errors of their faith ; and yet they were 
*' deceivers and antichrists" whom ^* the elect lady" must " not re- 
ceive into her house." 2 John. " A man that is an heretic, after 
the first and second admonition, reject." Tit. iii, 10. 

We have noticed a variety of inaccuracies in the work before us 
relating to things of comparatively small importance — showing the 
ignorance or inattention of its author, and how little credit can be 
given to his statements. We shall notice only a few. — He speaks 
repeatedly of ministerial Associations excommunicating their mem- 
bers. He might as well talk of a Lyceum or a mechanic's Association 
excommunicating members. To excommunicate is " to eject from 
the communion of a church by an Ecclesiastical censure." — He 
speaks of the doings of the General Assembly, of Synods, and of 
distinguished Presbyterian clergymen, as inconsistent with " the 
principles of Congregationalism ;" — as though the whole Presby- 
terian church, and all its members, were bound to observe what he 
deems the principles of Congregationalism /" — He makes " Dr. 
Miller the PrincipaV^ of the Theological Seminary at Princeton 5 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 25 

speaks of die ^'Delegates of the Synod;" and describes the " State 
Consociation" of Connecticut. When he travels again, he may- 
learn (if he inquires) that Dr. Miller is not the Principal of this 
Seminary ; that " Synods are not delegated bodies, but consist of 
all the members of the Presbyteries that compose them ;" and that 
in Connecticut there is no " State Consociation," and never has 
been. 

After the specimens here given of the attainments of Mr. W., in 
theology, history, law, and Ecclesiastical afiairs generally, it is not 
a little amusing to hear him talk so knowingly and positively as he 
does, in most parts of these Letters. He describes the differences 
existing among the Orthodox, and the measure of intellectual ele- 
vation and improvement to be assigned to the different portions of 
our community, as he thinks, no doubt, with hair-splitting accu- 
racy. 

" The literal fact seems to be this. In religious truth, Andoveris fifty years 
in advance of Bangor and Princeton ; New Haven and New York are twenty- 
five years in advance of Andover ; and Cambridge is fifty years in advance of 
New Haven !" 

How fortunate for the different Orthodox Seminaries to be able 
to know on so high authority, their relative standing, and how far 
they all are in the rear of Cambridge ! ! 

We shall next call attention to a portion of Mr. Whitman's state- 
ments, which indicate, not so much his ignorance, as his disingen* 
uoiisness. 

He often insinuates what he dares not affirm, and yet throws out 
his insinuations in such a way that they have all the effect of direct 
assertions. Instances of this kind, too numerous to be mentioned, 
must have forced themselves upon the notice of all his readers. 

It is obvious that the statements of our author are nearly all of 
them exparte. They are the complaints of those who think them- 
selves aggrieved or injured, and who are here permitted — without 
inquiry or contradiction, and with the additional advantage of Mr. 
Whitman's coloring — to pour forth their murmurs. What jury 
would think of bringing in a verdict, when" they had heard only one 
side of a case ? Yet they might do it with as much propriety and 
justice as the public can form a judgement, in view of most of the 
statements in the work before us. 

It is an old adage, " He that is first in his own cause seemeth just, 
but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him." But in regard to 
many of the statements of Mr. W. there is no such thing as com- 
ing and searching him ; for he gives them without names, or dates, 
or any marks of reference by which they can be traced. We 
think it right and safe — and our readers will think so before we are 
through — to set down all such stories as false, until they are ac- 
companied with responsible names, or are presented in such a way 
that their truth or falsehood may be fairly investigated. 
4 



26 Review of 

As a similar instance of unfairness, we may notice the quotations 
of Mr. W. These are numerous, and of a character that renders 
it specially important that they should be examined. Yet there is 
scarcely a reference to authorities in his whole book, or any means 
furnished by which h"is quotations may be verified. This omission 
is not only vexatious but suspicious. We know of no reason why 
an author, w^ho uniformly quotes fairly and truly, should be unwil- 
ling to inform his readers whence his extracts were obtained, and 
where they may be compared with their originals. 

In some instances, where names are given, we know that our au- 
thor has not derived his information from the proper source. Take 
the case of James Kimball (related pp. 92, 93,) who several years 
ago was removed from the theological seminary at Andover, and 
soon after died : Did Mr. W. go to the Faculty at Andover for 
information in regard to this painful subject? Or did he take, at 
second or third hand, the statements of the aggrieved Kimball ? 
We could name a certain Sophomore — not unknown to our author 
— who, some years ago, was suspended from Harvard University, 
and who, when his term of suspension expired, refused to return. 
Suppose the statements of this Sophomore had been carefully noted 
down, by himself or some of his learned friends, and afterwards 
published ; would they have been received as exhibiting a true 
and faithful account of the difficulty existing between him and his 
instructors ? Yet they could hardly have been entitled to less con- 
fidence than some of the insinuations here thrown out (for this is 
one of the cases in which Mr. W. does not think proper to deal 
in direct assertion) respecting the grievances of James Kimball. 

In stating a case, Mr. W. often gives only a part of it, omitting 
such things as would not appear in his favor. For example ; in 
his insinuations respecting Dr. Murdock, he does not pretend to 
state the case fully, but intimates that a * history of the whole affair' 
may yet be published. Had we no other reasons for not going, at 
present, into a full consideration of this matter, this last intimation 
would be alone sufficient. We prefer to wait till the full history 
is published, rather than attempt replying to a score of inuendos, 
thrown out by a man who obviously has as litde knowledge of the 
subject, as he has concern with it. The public know already that 
Dr. Murdock was removed from office in the theological Seminary 
at Andover, by the unanimous voice of the Board of Trustees ; 
that he then appealed, as he had a right to do, to the Visitors, who 
unanimously confirmed the decision of the Trustees; that he next 
appealed to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth (as he 
was permitted to do by the statutes of the Seminary and the laws 
of the State) and that in this Court the sentence of the Vis- 
itors was confirmed. The public, we say, already know as much 
as this ; and Mr. W. will find they know enough not to be greatly 
perturbed or excited by any thing he has said relating to this subject. 



Letters on Religions Liberty, 27 

One of the most imposing cases stated in these Letters is tha 
respecting Rev. Mr. Hubbard, of Lunenburg. The story, as re- 
lated by JMr. W., is, in brief, as follows : When Mr. H. came to 
Lunenburg, it was generally known by Orthodox ministers in that 
region, that he had been in the practice of exchanging with Unita- 
rians. On this account, they were determined, if possible, to pre- 
vent his settlement. Accordingly they went to Andover and ear- 
nestly solicited information derogatory to his character. False re- 
ports were invented by an individual in Middleton, the place of Mr. 
Hubbard's former settlement ; by him communicated to Rev. Mr. 
Braman of Danvers ; and by him to Rev. Mr. Payson, of Leomin- 
ster, who took pains to circulate them in Lunenburg, with a view 
to prevent the settlement of Mr. H. All this is accompanied with 
an array of " confessions," which, to those unacquainted with cir- 
cumstances, gives it the appearance of solemn reality. 

We will now state ihe facts in the case, as we have received them 
from the individuals directly concerned, that our readers may com- 
pare the one statement w^ith the other. When Mr. H. came to 
Lunenburg, he was an entire stranger, we believe, to all the Ortho- 
dox ministers in the vicinity, certainly to Mr. Payson, who is rep- 
resented as " the principal instrument in this unrighteous work." 
Consequently, these ministers could have no prejudices respecting 
him, one way or the other. Reports, not relating to his doctrinal 
belief or his exchanges, but unfavorable to his character,soon follow- 
ed him to the scene of his future labors, and came to the ears of 
the neighboring clergy. Being at Andover soon after, at the anni- 
versary of the Theological Seminary, (not going there, as Mr. W. 
insinuates, for the very purpose of hunting up scandal) they im- 
proved the opportunity to inquire into the truth of these reports. 
They heard them confirmed from several sources, and particularly 
by Rev. Mr. Braman. On their return, they communicated, as 
they felt bound to do, to their friends in Lunenburg, the substance 
of what they had heard. — Such is a brief statement of this impo- 
sing case ; and what is there, we ask, relating to it, in which Mr. 
Payson and his ministerial brethren, can be regarded as culpable? 
Settled in the immediate vicinity of Lunenburg, then a destitute 
parish, is it strange that they should feel interested respecting the 
character of its future minister ? And when they heard reports 
unfavorable to the character of Mr. H., who was preaching there 
on probation, is it strange that they should improve a favorable op- 
portunity to make inquiry respecting these reports? And when 
they heard them confirmed from respectable sources, is it strange 
that they believed them — and felt under obligations to communicate 
what they had heard to their friends in Lunenburg ? 

As to Mr. Braman, it is not pretended that he reported more 
than he had heard on good authority, or more than he had reason, 
at the time, to believe was true. And as to the individual in Mid- 



^8 Review of 

dleton, on whom, according to the representation of Mr. W., the 
blame of the transaction almost entirely rests, we feel constrained 
to give the following account, communicated by Mr. Braman, of 
the manner in which his confession was obtained. 

"The confession of the gentleman in Middleton was an extorted one. He, at 
that time, was in ill health, suffering under a disorder of the nervous system, 
and liable in consequence to great mental agitation. Being severely threatened 
and treated in an overbearing manner by Mr. H. ; being taken into a room with 
several individuals, all Mr. H.'s friends ; being pressed with the consequences of 
refusing to sign the confession prepared for him — and with no one to advise and 
assist him, he put his name to a paper, the contents of which he had not pres- 
ence of mind enough fully to comprehend. What deserves particular mention 
is, that his agitation and confession were principally produced and wrung from 
him, by an unfounded statement which Mr. H. made to him of some declara- 
tions I had reported him to have uttered respecting Mr. H.'s moral character. 
He doubted the truth of what Mr. H. said he could substantiate by witness, and 
asked for 07ie hour to send for me, with a view to ascertain the correctness of 
the statement ; but was told that it could not be granted, and that unless he 
should sign the confession speedily, a legal prosecution would be commenced 
against him. Fearing that, in case the matter should be brought to such a re- 
sult, I might appear as an important witness against him, he reluctantly com- 
plied Vv^ith the demand. Had I been sent for, his confession would have appear- 
ed in a very different shape from that in which it is presented in Mr- Whit- 
man's Letters. As it now stands, it ought never to have been demanded or 



Mr. W. will have it that these reports were 'invented and circulated 
to prevent Mr. H. from exchanging with the Unitarians.' They 
" were invented," he says, ^' by the individual in Middleton." 
But, as it happens, this individual had no objection to Mr. H. on 
account of his exchanging with the Unitarians. His opposition 
arose from very different reasons. It happens, too, that the most 
active and influential opposer of Mr. H. at Middleton, one who 
said as much to his disadvantage as any person there, was the most 
decided Unitarian in the place. Mr. Braman likewise assures us 
that, though he ' disapproves of the practice of exclianging with 
Unitarians, and could not conscientiously pursue that course 
himself, yet he had never any feelings of prejudice or hostility to 
Mr. H. on this account, but felt fully willing that he should be gov- 
erned by his own views of duty on the subject.' When Mr. Pay- 
son and his ministerial brethren learned what the practice of Mr. 
H. in regard to exchanges had been, doubtless they felt more un- 
willing than they otherwise would, that he should be settled in their 
immediate vicinity ; but we are authorised to say, that the unfavor- 
able reports which first reached them, and into the truth of which 
they felt bound to inquire, did not relate to the subject of exchan- 
ges, but were of a very different character.* We have devoted 
more space to this affiiir than we otherwise should have done, be- 
cause, as stated in the letters before us, it has more the appearance 
of authenticity and accuracy ; and has probably excited more at- 
tention and inquiry, than any of the stories there detailed. 

• See Appendix, Note B. 



Letters on Religions Liberty. 29 

Mr. W. has much to say in this connexion, respecting "the threat- 
enings of the leaders of the Orthodox party," hy which they over- 
awe their too timid brethren, and })revent their exchanging with 
Unitarians. To this we can only reply, that after many years' fa- 
miliar intercourse with Orthodox ministers in different parts of the 
State, we never heard a threat of this kind, nor heard of one, un- 
til we were informed of them by INIr. W. It is not a little strange 
that Orthodox ministers should go to him with their complaints, 
when they never had whispered them to their own brethren. 

He has much to say, also, respecting the vneasiness of the peo- 
ple over whom our Orthodox brethren are settled, because they 
will not exchange with Unitarians, and avers, as what may be ' de- 
pended on,' that "parishes will not much longer suffer their ministers" 
to pursue such a course. We claim to know something on this sub- 
ject, as well as Mr. W., and we can assure him, as what may be 
* depended on,' that a vast majority of those who are blessed with 
faithful Orthodox preaching, are as sincerely averse to promiscuous 
exchanges, as their pastors are. So far from desiring to hear Uni- 
tarian ministers, they would absolutely refuse to hear them. Many 
would not hear them even for a Sabbath. In most of the few ca- 
ses where promiscuous exchanges are still continued, many of the 
people, we know, are uneasy on account of them, and are wish- 
ing and praying that the days of their continuance may be short- 
ened. * 

Mr. W. tells a story, p. 21, of an Orthodox minister in Mid- 
dlesex County, who, previous to his call, concealed his " real 
theological sentiments," and " manifested a willingness to be lib- 
eral in his ministerial intercourse," and who, after settlement, "con- 
tinued for a year or more to exchange occasionally with Unitarian 
ministers ; " but who, at length, came out on doctrinal subjects, and 
refused further exchanges of this nature. In this case, though 
neither name nor date is given, we have been so fortunate as to as- 
certain the individual to whom our author alludes ; and we must say 
that a more unfair and inaccurate representation was perhaps nev- 
er spread before the public. The clergyman referred to, we are 
fully satisfied, did not, previous to his call, conceal his " theolog- 
ical sentiments," or "manifest a willingness" to exchange with 
Unitarians; nor did he, after settlement, "continue for a year or 
more to exchange occasionally with Unitarian ministers. " f 

The account which Mr. W. gives of the ' persecutions ' of Rev. 
John Truair, p. 44, is equally partial and unfounded. It would seem 
from his statement, that Mr. T. was first employed in West Hamp- 

* How astonishing-, after all Mr. W. and some of his brethren have said to the discredit 
of Orthodox ministers, that they should still wish to exchange with them ! What shall be 
thought of a minister's consistency, or his sense r^f personal responsibility, who should 
wish to introduce into his pulpit, teachers, such as these are represented to be in the work 
before us ! 

t He made one such exchange, and one only. See Appendix, Note C. 



30 Review of 

ton after " the secession of a part of the Orthodox society ; " 
whereas he was employed several months previous to that event, 
and it was in consequence of his labors that the secession took 
place. The Hampshire Central Association are represented as 
being " interested to prevent the formation of a second parish in 
that town," and as interposing by their " Committee to persuade 
the two parties to unite, and Mr. Truair to leave the place ; " 
whereas the Association took no order on the subject, until they 
were requested to do so by a respectable portion of the inhabitants 
of the town. Mr. W. says, " The seceders agreed to return to 
the old congregation, and their preacher to retire from their em- 
ployment, on certain conditions," but "the old society did not com- 
ply with their part of the conditions;" whereas it can be made to 
appear that the old society, and their pastor, did comply with their 
part of the conditions so far as, in existing circumstances, was pos- 
sible. Mr. W. copies the resolutions of the Hampshire Central 
Association, signifying that Mr. T. had 'forfeited their confidence 
as a minister of Christ,' and then asks, " What had this persecu- 
ted man done to merit this severe and destructive persecution ? 
Nothing half so bod as the Orthodox preachers are doing almost 
every day in this vicinity." Does Mr. W. know what he has here 
written ? Are the Orthodox preachers in this vicinity in the habit 
of tolerating and encouraging the greatest disorders and irregularities 
in their religious meetings ? Are they in the habit of continuing their 
evening lectures till the dead hour of midnight, and in some instances 

almost till the dawning of day? Are they in the habit of — 

<- But we will not stain our paper with what we were about to 

write. Suffice it to say, that the Presbytery of New York, with 
which Mr.T. is connected, have sent Commissioners to West Hamp- 
ton to investigate his conduct — that he has been publicly tried on 
several charges and specifications going to impeach his moral and 
ministerial character^*-and diat the Presbytery have since " voted 
that all the charges and most of the specifications " against him 
" are amply sustained," and '' that he be immediately suspended 
from the ministry and the sacraments of the church.' Such is Mr. 
Whitman's " worthy minister ! " worthy confessor ! If he has 
blushes, they may yet be called forth, when he reviews the page he 
has occupied in decribing what he calls the the " severe and de- 
structive persecution " of Mr. Truair. 

The next case considered by our author is that of the Rev. 
Thomas Worcester of Salisbury, N. H. who, he says, has " been 
persecuted in almost every possible manner by the Orthodox, be- 
cause he renounced the doctrine of the Trinity." We are not so 
particularly acquainted with the circumstances of this case, as with 
those of some others ; but we know enough to feel assured that 
the above is altogether an exaggerated statement. Mr. W. ac- 
knowledges that ' for more than ten years after an open avowal of 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 31 

bis disbelief of tbe triune doctrine, he was permitted to hold his 
place as a pastor, the most of the time in a good degree of peace 
and comfort.^ During some part of this period, his greatest trouble 
seemed to be, that his ministerial brethren let him alone, and decli- 
ned controversy with him. At length it was reported, that the mem- 
bers of the Hopkinton Association were becoming favorable to the 
scheme of the ]\lessrs. Worcester's respecting the Trinity. * They 
hear us with silence,^ it was said, — implying that they heard with si- 
lent approbation. This led the Association, at their next meeting, 
to vote, that they did not approve of the sentiments of the Messrs. 
Worcesters, but adhered to their former views on the subject of the 
Trinity.* It is only a few years ago, that Mr. Thomas Worcester 
was dismissed by a mutual Council. The following is from a Let- 
ter of a principal member of this Council : 

" Before the Council there was no impeachment of Mr. Worcester's Ortho- 
doxy, nor any complaint aifecting his Christian or ministerial character. The 
act of dismission was predicated on the divided state and unfavorable prospects 
of the church and people. The Council, in their result, felt constrained to ani- 
madvert on the great error which I\Ir. Worcester had publicly and repeatedly 
avowed ; but they acquitted him as explicitly of having avowed other errors 
which are usually connected with it." 

As another illustration of our author's accuracy, we may refer 
to his account of transactions in the second church in Brookfield. 
He says the original covenant of this church was " so liberal, that 
Christians of different religious opinions" (evidently designing to 
include Unitarians) " could give their assent to its requisitions ;" 
whereas the original covenant was Trinitarian and Orthodox, and 
substantially the same with that now used by the original Orthodox 
church in that place. He intimates that the introducing of a new 
and more Orthodox covenant in 1825 was that which led to Mr. 
Stone's dismission from the parish, '' a large majority" of which 
had become Unitarian. But in the reasons assigned by a Com- 
mittee of the parish why he ought to be dismissed, not a word is 
said as to any change in his religious sentiments, or any alteration 
of the covenant of the church, nor is any dissatisfaction expressed 
with Orthodox principles and preaching. Mr. Stone is represent- 
ed by Mr. W. as dismissed from the church ; whereas he never 
was dismissed from the church, not even from that portion of it 
who continue to worship with the parish. Mr. W. says, that when 
* the majority of the communicants' — alias the church — ' seceded, 
they carried off the church records, plate, and Bible, which law-^ 
fully belonged to the congregation.' By what right the church re^ 
cords and plate belonged to the con^greo-fl^ion, remains to be shown. 
The Bible they did not carry away. When the church seceded, 
two male members remained behind. These, says Mr. W., " vvere 
excommunicated," " because they would not follow" their breth^ 

* We are not able to give the precise words of the vote. The above, as our corres- 
pondent assures us, is the substance of it. 



32 Review of 

reri " to a new place of worship and communion." One of these 
members was excommunicated, in part, for neglecting public wor- 
ship and the communion of the church, not subsequent to the sep- 
aration, but/or a long time previous ; and the other for immoral 
and disorderly conduct, and for breach of covenant. But, says 
Mr. W., he ' had broken no covenant engagements, as he never 
signed the new Orthodox creed.' Nor did any of the church sign 
the creed. They expressed their assent to it, when it was propos- 
ed to them, by rising from their seats, — and this member rose among 
the rest.* 

If our readers are as tired of following us in these investigations, 
as we are of pursuing them, they are certainly to be pitied. We 
crave their patience only while we lay before them a few more 
specimens of the fairness and accuracy of our veracious author. — 
Speaking of the Trinitarian Congregational church inWaltham, he 
informs us that " an Orthodox minister was settled there, upon the 
condition that he should leave, whenever two thirds of the voters 
should so decide ;" and that " after five years ministrations," only 
^' fifteen votes from more than a hundred voters could be obtained 
for his continuance*" Mr. W. does not mention the number who 
were denied the privilege of voting, although members of the soci- 
ety, because they had not resided within the limits of Waltham the 
whole of the preceding year ; nor how many of those who voted 
left Unitarian and Universalist societies, only a few days pre- 
vious, for the very purpose, as some of them have since confessed, 
of effecting the dismission of the Orthodox minister ; nor how 
many were sent for to a neighboring state to come and vote on this 
emergency, though they had been removed from Waltham several 
months ; — nor how many hundreds, including females, presented a 
petiiion, praying that their pastor might not be dismissed. — The 
Orthodox minister he says, " left the house of worship with only 
five male members. They took the records and the plate, which 
had been presented by the agent of the manufacturing company, a 
Unitarian ; and the Bible, which had been purchased by a sub- 
scription among the ladies." He should have said, that the whole 
church, male and female without an exception, followed their Pas- 
tor to another place of worship. They took their records and 
their plate, for the very obvious and sufficient reason, that they 
were their own property. To whom did they belong, if not to 
this church ? Not surely to the original church in Waltham, (Mr. 
Ripley's) and as to Mr. Whitman's, it was not then in existence, 
but was formed de novo after the separation. As to the Bible, 
which Mr. W. affirms the church took, they did not take it. It 
was taken by the original purchasers, or so many of them as still 
resided in Waltham (whose property it was) and by them given to 
Mr. Harding's church subsequent to the separation. — " The Su- 

* See Appendix, Note D. 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 33 

preme Court have repeatedly decided," says our author, " that 
such seceders have no right to the church property. These de- 
cisions were known at the very time by those who openly violated 
the laws of the Commonwealth." He must be supposed to speak 
of the kind of property above referred to, as ihe plate, he. The 
Supreme Court of Massachusetts had not then decided (we are 
not aware that they have now) that a seceding church could not 
hold property of this description. In the case of Baker and Fales, 
Judge Parker says, " There may undoubtedly be donations to a 
church which, from the nature of the property given, ought to be 
considered to be in trust for church uses, such ns furniture for a 
communion table, a baptismal font, he. The particular use, im- 
plied from the nature of the property given, would in such case 
exclude any claim of the parish or society, as such, to such property. ^^ 
Term Reports, Vol. xvi. p. 496. 

Mr. W. represents, in this connexion, that the Orthodox claim 
for their churches the sole and exclusive right of choosing a minis-, 
ter, and of holding all the parochial property. He ought to have 
known, if he did not know, that this is an unfounded representation. 
In all our churches, with the exception of a very few, which hold 
their houses of worship on conditions which render such an arrange- 
ment impossible,"^ the right of the associated parishes to choose 
their religious teachers, and to hold and control their own property 
is sacredly maintained. Our churches assume no parish right. 
All they claim is the right (in concurrence with the associated 
parishes) to choose their own Pastors, and to hold and control 
such property as belongs exclusively to themselves. 

A distinct subject of complaint in the Letters before us is the 
American Education Society. Mr. W. alleges that this Society 
has obtained " a considerable amount of funds from Unitarians, 
with the express understanding that indigent students of their own 
sentiments should be assisted." This statement w^e are authorized 
to deny. That the Directors of the Society do not patronize young 
men who are known to be Unitarians, is true. That they never 
promised to do this, is also true. Donations have been neither sot 
licited nor received wnth any such " express understanding" on the 
part of the Society or its Directors, in regard to their appropria^ 
tion, as is here asserted. So far from this, the entire amount of 
donations, with the exception, perhaps, of a few dollars-^a mere 
fraction in comparison with the whole— has been given by members 
of Orthodox churches and congregations, and with the fullest un- 
derstanding that the money was to be applied to the education of 

* We refer to those places of worship held by trust deeds, some of which secure to the 
male members of ihe church the exclusive rij^hl of choosing- the religious teacher. Dif- 
ferent opinious are entertained among intelligent Orthodox people as to the expediency 
of these deeds. Certain it iS; they never would have been resorted to in this country (in 
England, Unitarianism has subsisted upon trust deeds for the greater part of a century) 
had it not been for the eflforls of the enemies of our faith to despoil our churches of their 
rights, and get possession of their property. 



34 Review of 

young men for the ministry in Evangelical or Orthodox denomina- 
tions only. Of such denominations, not less than sevtn have 
shared in the appropriation of these funds. 

Mr. W. further alleges, that if a beneficiary of this Society 
" wishes to receive his collegiate education at Cambridge, every 
possible exertion is made Xo frighten him from such a proceeding." 
This representation is also unfounded. For several years after the 
American Education Society was formed, and before the sectarian 
character of Harvard University was so well understood as it is at 
present, young men of Orthodox sentiments occasionally resorted 
there for an education, and received the patronage of the Society. 
Twenty-two young men of this character were aided in that insti- 
tution between the years 1816 and 1825, and received not far from 
four thousand eight hundred dollars. Since the period last men- 
tioned, few if any applications have been made from that quarter ; 
and so long as the University is governed by the exclusive and sec- 
tarian policy of its present rulers. Orthodox young men will not go 
there for an education, and consequently will not be patronized 
there. Should the officers of the American Education Society be 
requested, as individuals, to advise their beneficiaries (and this is 
all the authority over them which they can exercise) whether they 
shall seek an education at Cambridge while the present policy is 
pursued, they will — not 'make every possible exertion io frighten 
them from' going — but will doubtless advise them not to go. 

Mr. W. has given the following account of the associations of the 
beneficiaries for prayer and Christian conference in the places of 
their education. 

"All those beneficiaries, who reside at the same literary institution, are 
obliged to assemble together once a month, according to the laws of a printed 
constitution. They must make one of their number the secretary of the body, 
who is to keep an account of all absences from the monthly meetings, note all 
aberrations in thought, word, and deed, and transmit a faithful history of the 
same to the general secretary. His answer will then be read for the special 
benefit of all concerned. The constitution further requires, that four prayers 
be made on each evening of meeting, and specifies the subjects. One is to be 
especially for their secretary, that he may be faithful in recording their errors 
and failings; and also for the whole Education Society." 

We consider this one of the most inexcusable and apparently 
wilful misrepresentations in the work before us. Our author must 
have had the " constitution" of which he speaks before him ;* with 
the intelligence of a child he could have understood it ; and yet he 
totally misrepresents it. It is no where said that the beneficiaries 
are " obliged to assemble together once a month," Sic. but only 
that they are " expected'''' to do this. The " constitution" spoken 
of is not enjoined on them, as a code of " laws,''^ but simply pro- 
posed to them as a model according to which, if they think proper, 
they may form the rules of their association. What Mr. W. calls 
" the secretary of the body," is in the constitution denominated 

* See Appendix, Note E. 



Letters on Religious Liberty, 35 

" the presiding member." Tiie secretary, he says, must " note 
all aberrations in thought, word, and deed." This is fabrication 
entire. No such duty is enjoined upon the presiding member, or 
attempted by him, nor could he possibly perform it, should the at- 
tempt be made. A^ain, we are told, that one of the prayers " is 
to be especially for their secretary (meaning, as the connexion deter- 
mines it, the secretary of the meeting) that he may be faithful in 
recording their errors and failings ; and also for the whole Educa- 
tion Society." This statement, so far as it relates to special prayer 
for " their secretary," is altogether without foundation. It is re- 
commended in the constitution, that the second prayer shall be for 
" the American Education Society ;" for its " several branches ;" 
for its " members and supporters ;" for its " Executive officers ;" 
and among these for " the Secretary of the parent society, that he 
may have grace and every needful qualification for his various and 
responsible duties." But that the young men are required to pray 
" especially for their secretary, that he may be faithful in recording 
their errors and failings," is utterly false. 

Mr. W. tells us, p. 144, of " a member of an Orthodox church 
who left Cambridge College and joined Amherst," and who " has 
lately affirmed, that there is more roguery, more dissipation, and 
less order at Amherst than at Cambridge, and that he wished him- 
self well back to the heretical institution." What will be thought 
of the fairness of this statement, and of the conduct of him who 
could stoop to make it, when it is known that the individual here 
referred to — a young man with whom, and with whose circumstan- 
ces, our author is well acquainted — was, at the time when the 
above account was published, suspended both from the church to 
which he belonged and from Amherst College, on a charge of im- 
morality ! No wonder " he wished himself well back to the he- 
retical institution ! !" 

Among the anonymous tales with which these letters are stuffed, 
we have the following : — 

" An Orthodox minister called upon a very sick widow, who had been several 
years an exemplary member of a Unitarian church. His presence was neither 
solicited nor desired by the suffering patient. He assured her, that she could 
not expect to be saved, unless she believed in the divinity of Christ. She after- 
ward observed, that such unchristian treatment would have deprived her of her 
senses, had she not searched the Scriptures for herself, and known in whom she 
confided." 

We have been made acquainted with the circumstances of this 
case, all which were probably known to Mr. W., and are permit- 
ted to publish the following account, received from the Orthodox 
minister to whom he refers. 

" I went at the very earnest written request of a brother of the sick widow, 
who desired me to visit her as soon as practicable after receiving his letter. I 
found this * exemplary member of a Unitarian church' disposed to question the 
inspiration of the Bible, and the truth of its representations of another worldy 
and to doubt whether there was any hereafter. I do not recollect saying what 



36 Review of 

Mr. W. says I did. I endeavored to give her such instruction as I thought ap- 
propriate and useful to one about to leave the world." 

Our author thus describes a certain place which he does not 
name, but which we have been able to identify. 

" There are about one thousand inhabitants in the place. They all attend a 
Unitarian meeting. One of your disorganizers enters the peaceful foJH, and 
succeeds in turning some of the flock from their present pastor. They are 
organized into a feeble church. Their secession takes from the annual salary 
from five to ten dollars. A shanty is thrown up for a place of worship 5 and a 
minister is ordained over them." 

The facts concerning this j^lace we have received from a highly 
i^spectable correspondent, and shall give them in his own words. 

" In this " peaceful fold," several individuals had long been Uneasy. At 
length, one of the deacons became dissatisfied with the preaching, and was dis- 
tressed in view of his situation as a sinner. He communicated his feelings to 
the other deacon, who was ready to reciprocate them; for he also had been 
similarly exercised. They, witli some others, occasionally met for prayer. 
They visited their minister, and asked him to attend the monthly concert, and 
to encourage them in their devotional meetings. They frequently visited him, 
and had ho idea of separating from him, if they could receive encouragement 
and assistance as they wished ; for he had been settled as an Orthodox minister, 
and professed to b6 so even then. But all their efforts with him were in vain. 
They consulted together, and unitedly prayed for divine direction. They then 
consulted neighboring ministers, who advised tbem to go to their pastor again. 
Some of these ministers also visited him, and expressed their ardent desire 
that he might preach those truths which he had formerly preached, and which 
he professed at the time of his ordination, and thus keep the society together. 
At leiigth the deacons and some others became satisfied that they had no rea- 
son to expect their minister woiild preach what they considered as evangelical 
doctrine. They owned property in the meeting house, and knew that if they 
separated they should be reproached. But after mature deliberation, and many 
struggles, they came to the conclusion to abandon their property, disregard 
reproaches, and claim for themselves the same " Religious Liberty" which 
they freely granted to others. They concluded to establish an evening meeting 
for religious instruction, and asked their minister to meet with them ; but he 
refused. They then invited other ministers to come and preach to them ; and 
now, for the first time, one of Mr. W.'s alleged " disorganizers enters the 
peaceful fold," and " succeeds," as he says," in turning some of the flock from 
their present pastor." But had they not turned from their pastor before? And 
in so doing, had they done anything " inconsistent with free inquiry, religious 
liberty, or the principles of Congregationalism ?"^ — They wished peaceably to 
perform what they deemed their duty, allowing to all others the same privilege. 
But were they permitted to assemble in peace and worship God, according to 
the dictates of their own consciences ? Were not stones and eggs thrown into 
their place of worship, to the great annoyance and hazard of those who were 
assembled !! Was not one who, at their request, went peaceably to preach to 
them the Gospel, treated in a manner even more shameful — in a manner not to 
be related ! ! Did they not assail him, on leaving the place of worship, with 
<)aths and curses, and follow him with the most horrible imprecations to a con- 
siderable distance from the place ! Were not preparations made to burn another 
clergyman in efRgy, who went there peaceably to preach the Gospel ! When 
on a certain occasion, the pious people in the place were assembled for worship, 
did not their iil/cral neighbors come around the house with drums and horns, 
and by shaking the windows, getting upon the roof, stamping, and in other ways, 
make such disturbance as to stop the meeting ! ! !* .Such was a part of the abuse 

* This whole account is confirmed by other correspondents and witnesses, some of 
whom were llie principal objects of abuse on these occasions. We could mention a vari- 
ety of instances of similar abuse, in which the liberal opposers of Orthodoxy have dis- 
played their zeal, by dashing iii windows where their neighbors were assembled for reli- 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 37 

and suffering of this small Orthodox Society, while quietly assembling for the 
worship of God, and endeavoring to do their duty. I am as sorry to say these 
things as any of those implicated can be to hear them ; but Mr. W. lias com- 
pelled me. I could not correct his misrepi-esentations, and vindicate the injur- 
ed people whom he traduces and slanders, without saying thein. By great ex- 
ertions, they have built a small but neat place of worship (wiiich he reproaches 
with the name of a " 5/<a/i<y"') and have settled a minister. ' Tiieir secession,' 
he says, ' takes from the annual salary from five to ten dollars. He might have 
known that one of the seceding deacons paid more than this sum himself. He 
concludes his account by saying, ' Such is an exact and tme description !' If the 
rest of his book is as * exact and true,' may it soon be covered with the disgrace 
it merits." 

Professor Stuart, in his Letter, had referred to the late perse- 
cutions in Switzerland, and attributed them to the influence of Uni- 
tarianism. In reply, Mr. VV. asserts, that " Unitarianism has had 
nothing whatever to do with these persecutions ;" but "one party of 
Calvinists has been persecuting another party for being more zeal- 
ous and rigid (more rigid than their persecutors !) in their views 
and measures." In ' proof of tliis,' he proceeds to show, that the 
persecuting churches, in the Cantons of Vaud and Berne, still ad- 
here, at least nominally, to the Helvetic Confession of faith. — And 
so the Arians of the fourth century adhered nominally to the Ni- 
cene faith. This faith was the established religion of the empire, 
at the same time that its faithful adherents u^ere banished and per- 
secuted for their opinions.^ The elder Socinus professed an ad- 
herence to the Helvetic Confession as long as he lived. f In the 
Genevese churches, which our author admits are Unitarian, the 
Helvetic Confession has never been formally set aside, although 
subscription to it is not now enforced. J It is no new thing for Uni- 
tarians to profess adherence to an Orthodox Confession of faith* 
"In the year 1772, many clergymen of the church of England, 
who held Unitarian sentiments, petitioned the Legislature for re- 
lief from the necessity of subscribing the articles of that church, 
because that subscription was opposed to their conscientious beliej.^^ 
And though their petition was rejected, they, with one exception, 
still persisted in their adherence to the church. It is not long since 
Unitarians in this country denied that they were Unitarians, and 
counted themselves slandered when this name was a])plied to them. 
" The fact becomes more and more manifest," says Dr. Smith, 
speaking of the Canton of Vaud, " that it is not separation, but 
vital religion, that is the real object of hatred ; for many harass- 
ments and injuries have been coinmitted upon pious persons, both 

gious purposes — in cutting harnesses — shearing horses — pulling out linch-pins — besmear- 
ing cushions — privately nailing up houses where meetings were appointed — defihno;' the 
steps of churciies — drawing ropes across the street to endanger tlie limbs and lives of fe- 
males returning from meeting in the evening — and in various other acts of rudeness and 
violence ! ! Such things have been done (we blush to say it) in this nineteenth c nlury — 
at no great distance from our good city of Boston — and by those, too, who claim to 5e die 
most strenuous advocHte- for freedom in religion, and liberty of conscience ! ! ! 

* See Milner's Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 79, et alibi. 

t See Mosheim's Eccl. Hist, vol.iv. p. 469. 

t See Christian Observer, vol. xxvi. p, 684. 



38 Review of 

ministers and others, who remain attached to the established 
church." * " We fear," says one who had travelled in Switzer- 
land, " that, in the Canton of Berne, a large proportion of the 
clergy belong to the anti-evangelical party. We could hear of few 
instances of that clear and faithful display of truth which is calcu- 
lated to bring home the gospel to the hearts of men." " The cler- 
gy who adopt Unitarian views cannot explain or enforce the doc- 
trines which they are compelled to teach in their catechetical in- 
struction, and it would be too gross an inconsistency to opposexheva 
openly." f Such is the character of those, generally, in the Can- 
tons of Vaud and Berne, who have been chargeable with persecu- 
ting the people of God. They are " anti-evangelicaV — to a great 
extent in doctrine, and entirely so in spirit, — let their profession be 
what it may. 

But not to insist on this : Mr. W. acknowledges that the Gene- 
vese are Unitarians. And does he not know, or has he not the 
candor to admit, that on them, too, rests the disgraceful charge of 
religious persecution ? Does he not know, that in May 1817, all 
the pastors and ministers in Geneva were compelled to enter into 
an engagement not to preach on the following topics : 

" 1st. The manner in which the divine nature is united to the person of Jesus 
Christ. 

2dly. Original sin. 

3dly. The operation of Grace, or Effectual Calling. 

4thly. Predestination." 

They were also required to engage that they would not * oppose, 
in their public discourses, the sentiments of any minister or pastor 
on these subjects.' For refusing to take this engagement, does not 
our author know that M. Malan was " deposed from his office as 
Regent of the College, and deprived of his ministerial character 
in the church ;" and that, for the same offence, many worthy stu- 
dents have been denied ordination .■* Does he not know that the 
houses of some of these pious men have been violently at- 
tacked; that they have been stoned in the streets; and that their 
places of worship have been surrounded with mobs, and as- 
sailed, not only with blasphemies, but with clubs and weapons? 
Does he not know that attempts have been made to inflict upon 
some of them fines and imprisonment, for their fidelity in exposing 
prevailing errors, and promoting the cause of their Divine Master ? 
Does he not know, too, what disgraceful attempts have been made 
to calumniate and traduce them? how every slander that could be 
invented was greedily propagated through the newspapers for the 
purpose of bringing them into reproach ? And has he not heard 
of the attempt recently made on the part of the J^enerable Com- 
pagnie, to drive the faithful pastor of Satigny, from his admiring 

* Evangelical Magazine for Oct. 1829. 
t Christian Spectator for March 1830. 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 39 

flock, because he would not introduce the heretical Geneva Cate- 
chism into his schools ? And is there no persecution in all this ? 
Mr. Whitman's tender * heart bleeds,' and ' his blood runs cold,' 
as he tells us, in view of the persecutions which have been practis- 
ed by the Orthodox of New England : How does he feel, then, 
in view of what he must know has been done within a few years, 
in Unitarian Geneva ? And how will he reconcile the facts on this 
subject with his own positive declaration, " that Unitarianism has 
had nothing whatever to do " with the late persecutions in that 
country ? 

Mr. W. quotes President Edwards, or professes to quote him, 
(for there is no reference to guide us in consulting the original,) 
showing that the saints in glory will rejoice while beholding the mis- 
eries of the finally lost ; and then adds, 

" If I must become so completely hardened, as to take delight in observing the 
distress even of the vilest sinneis; if I must become so thoroughly brutalized, 
as to exult in witnessing the excruciating torments of my acquaintances; if I 
must become so perfectly deinonized, as to have my joys eternally increased 
by beholding the agonizing writhings of my friends, in the ever enduring, and 
unmitigated torments of hell, 1 can truly say, — Good Lord, deliver me from 
such a heaven." 

To say nothing of the coarseness and profaneness of these re- 
marks, IMr. W. must have known that he was putting an entirely 
erroneous and unwarrantable construction upon the sentiment and 
language of Edwards. This great and good man does indeed ex- 
hibit the saints in glory as, not grieving, but rejoicing while behold- 
ing the final condition of the wicked ; and the inspired writers do 
the same. See Rev. xviii. 20, and xix. 3. But how does Ed- 
wards explain the subject ? Does he represent the glorified saints as 
"so completely hardened," "so thoroughly brutalised," "so perfectly 
demonized," as to rejoice on account of the endless sufferings of a 
portion of their fellow creatures ? Such is the representation of our 
author ; but Edwards says no such thing. On the contrary, he 
describes the joy of which he speaks, not as the result of malice or 
envy, but as " the fruit of an amiable and excellent disposition." 
It is the same joy, in kind, which every fi'iend of his country feels, 
when the violators of its laws are brought to justice. It is a joy 
excited in the breasts of glorified beings above, because they see 
the law of God honored, his authority sustained, and his glory pro- 
moted, in the deserved punishment of those who have rebelled 
against him ; and it will be consistent, says Edwards, with " a spirit 
of goodness and love," as far excelling the greatest instances of such 
a spirit in this world, " as the stars are higher than the earth, or 
the sun brighter than a glow-worm." * 

It is not very creditable to the fairness and ingenuousness of Mr. 
W. that he in many instances accuses and censures the Orthodox for 
the same things which, in like circumstances,are done by himself and 

* See Edward's Works, vol. vi. p. 473. 



40 Review of 

by those of his own party. He complains that Orthodox ministers 
withdraw fellowship from those whom they regard as having de- 
parted from the essential doctrines of the gospeL But do not 
Unitarians withdraw fellowship from those whom they regard as 
having departed from essential doctrines ? Suppose one of their 
preachers should become a professed follower of Kneeland or of 
Owen ; would they continue him in fellowship ? — Mr. W. censures 
our ministers for not exchanging with those who they believe have 
adopted essential errors. But Unitarians refuse to exchange with 
those who they believe have not adopted essential errors. Our 
author admits that Universalists ' make the Bible their standard of 
faith and practice,' that they are ' faithful in examining it,' and 
'sincere in their profession.' p. 153. Why then will he not 
exchange with them ? "^ — He complains of Orthodox ministers be- 
cause they will not be dictated and controlled in regard to their ex- 
changes ; while he says, almost with the next breath, " I surely am 
not to be controlled in mine." p. 24. 

He complains that ministers, who have changed their sentiments 
and become Unitarians after settlement, have in some instances been 
dismissed on account of theiropinions. And we have mentioned an 
instance already, in close connexion with our author, and we could 
mention several others, in which Orthodox ministers, who have not 
changed their sentiments, have been dismissed (much to their 
worldly loss and damage) merely on account of their opinions. — Or- 
thodox ministers, he says, by becoming Unitarians, have lost the 
confidence of their former friends. And we could mention an in- 
stance of recent occurrence in which a Unitarian minister, whom 
his brethren had appointed on a mission, had his commission with- 
drawn or withheld, because he professed himself a Universalist. 

Our author censures Orthodox ministers for sitting in judgement 
upon Unitarian publications, p. 43. But do not Unitarian ministers 
sit in judgement upon Orthodox publications ?■ On how many of our 
publications has Mr. W. passed a summary sentence of condem- 
nation in the Lettersbefore us. — He censures the Orthodox minis- 
ters for establishing worship in Unitarian parishes. But in how ma- 
ny instances have Unitarians established worship in Orthodox par- 
ishes ? If any doubt this, let them make inquiry — at Lynn, at Mil- 
ton, at North Bridgewater, at Raynham,at Northampton, at Spring- 
field, at Amherst, N. H., at Brattleborough, Vt. and in various 
other places. —He further censures Orthodox ministers, because they 
will not dismiss and recommend church members, who wish to re- 
move to Unitarian churches. But we could mention a variety of 
instances in which Unitarian ministers have treated their members 
in the same way. We have a letter now before us, in which an aged 

* In his answer to the call from the society in Waltham, Mr. W. says, " Whenever I 
meet a fellow sinner who exhibits the fruits of the gospel in his daily walk and conversa- 
tion, and professes to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, 1 shcUl readily ex- 
fend to him the hand of Christian /ellotoship." 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 41 

Unitarian minister assigns reasons at length why he cannot dismiss 
and recommend one of his members to an Orthodox church ; and 
Mr. W. himself says, that he should " truly call it unsafe and sinful 
to place one of his church members under Orthodox influence." 
p. 51. — Mr. VV. tells a story, p. 5(3, of certain Orthodox individuals 
rushing iiito a Unitarian church, with the intent to take possession 
of its funds. And we could tell several amusing stories of Unitari- 
ans rushing into parishes where Orthodox ministers were settled, 
with the intent to take possession of the meeting-house and funds. 
How many once crowded into a certain society in Waliham con- 
fessedly for this purpose? And how^ many have since joined the 
original society in Framingham apparently with the same intent?* — 
Mr. W. complains lliat, in our trust deeded churchiCS, some are obli- 
ged to assist in supporting the minister, who are not permitted to 
vote in tiie choice of him. And does he not know that in his own 
society, great numbers have been obliged to pay money for the sup- 
port of a minister, whom they had no voice in choosing, and on 
whose ministrations they could not conscientiously attend ? — Our 
author complains of the Orthodox for their 'denunciations' of Uni- 
tarians — that tliey deny them the Christian name, character, he. 
And we can refer him to a Unitarian publication, on the very title 
of which it is implied that a Calvinist is not a Christian. We can 
also refer him to a certain sermon preached a few years since by a 
Unitarian minister, with whom he ought to be well acquainted, the 
principal object of which w^as to show that the Orthodox deny the 
Lord Jesus. — Mv. W. regards the Colleges at New Haven and 
Amherst, where not " a Unitarian instructor can find employment," 
and where the preaching and prayers are Orthodox, as sectarian 
institutions. But when he comes to speak of Cambridge, where 
all the principal instructors, and all the preaching and prayers are 
Unitarian, he asks, '' In what consists the sectarian character of the 
institution? For the life of me, I cannot think of one particu- 
lar ! ! " p. 143. — Mr. W. complains that the Orthodox will not 
patronise the College, and the public schools of Unitarians. At 
the same lime he affirms that " Unitarians are afraid to send their 
" children to the Academy" at Andover, " where so much is done 
to prejudice youth in favor of Orthodoxy." p. 143. — He com- 
plains that "Orthodox laymen have withdrawn their patronage from 
mechanics, merchants, physicians and lawyers, because they embra- 
ced Unitarian seniiments." p. 87. — And we could mention a va- 
riety of instances — ten to his one, we doubt not — in which this has 
been done by Unitarians. He may recollect the case of a physi- 
cian in a neighboring town, who was once a deacon of the Unita- 

* In the Christian Register of Feb. 19, 1831, there is a long- complaint of the Univer- 
salists, for having crowded into the Unitarian society in Stoughlon, and eflectcd the dis- 
mission of iheir minister. Many Orthodox societies, who have received the same treat- 
ment from Unitarians, will know how to sympathize with their afflicted friends in Stough- 
ton. 

6 



42 Review of 

rian church, and who, by his faithful attendance and skill, had se- 
cured the confidence and the patronage of all around him ; but no 
sooner did he become Orthodox, and attend an Orthodox meeting, 
than he began to be reproached and forsaken. His Unitarian 
neighbors immediately invited another physician to setde among 
them and take his place ; and even his former minister, who for 
years had been favored with his services gratuitously, dismissed 
him at once, for the new comer, and advised his people to do the 
same. Mr. W. complains that the Orthodox dander the Unitari- 
ans — that they make false and injurious representations respecting 
them, with the intent to bring upon them reproach and disgrace. 
How far this statement is correct we do not now inquire. If a 
single, well authenticated instance could be produced, we should 
regret and condemn it as sincerely as our author. But is he not 
aware that the same charge might be retorted upon Unitarians with 
a vastly increased force ? We could name a single Orthodox cler- 
gyman who, could he receive a farthing apiece for all the slanders 
which his '' liberal " neighbors have put in circulation respecting 
him, would, we have no doubt, come into immediate possession of 
a large estate. — Mr. W. complains of Professor Stuart for calling 
in question the propriety of administering an oath to those who 
deny the reality of future punishment. He ought to know that the 
Professor is not alone in his views on this subject. Distinguished 
Unitarians, on the bench, and in their publications, have expressed 
the same sentiment. We extract the following from "the Political 
Class Book," a work recently published by Hon. William Sullivan 
of Boston for the use of schools : — " An oath supposes that he who 
takes it behoves that there is a God, who will, in a future life, reward 
the worthy and punish the wicked."^ p. 116. — Mr. W. com- 
plains much of the Orthodox — without any foundation, as we have 
shown — that they do not receive the Bible as the standard of their 
faith ^ But do leading Unitarians receive the Bible as the standard 
of their faith ^ Or do they deny its inspiration, and charge it with 
inadvertencies, errors and contradictions ? Those who are conver- 
sant with their publications will be able to answer this question for 
themselves. 

The class of facts here adverted to may not improperly be rank- 
ed under the head of inconsistencies, — unless our Unitarian friends 
think it consistent to require that of others, which does not exist 
among themselves. There are, however, in the work before us, 
inconsistencies and contradictions of a more striking character. 

In one place, Mr. W. speaks of " the old system of mutual 
councils" as belonging " to the Congregational form of govern- 
ment," and as constituting " a sufficient and perfect remedy in 

*If wc understand Professor Stuart, and others who agree with him in opinion on this 
subject, they would not deprive the Uitra-Uuiversahst or tiie Atheist of the right of testi- 
fying in a Court of justice ; but they regard it as solemn trifling to admit such persons to 
testify under the sanction of an oath. 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 43 

cases of difficulty." p. 35. But in other places, those who made 
the offer of a mutual council to decide upon existing difficulties are 
complained of, as pursuing measures "subversive of the principles 
of Congregationalism." pp. 12, 41. — In the case of the church at 
Wilton, the Orthodox minority are represented as very unreasona- 
ble, because they would not assent to the w^ishes of the majority. 
p. 12. But in other cases. Orthodox majorities are told that they 
have no right " to adopt rules" for the minority, or to hold the 
property of the church, pp. 20. 55. It would seem from this 
that the Orthodox, whether a minority or majority, can have no 
Ecclesiastical rights. — IMr. W. speaks of the Orthodox, in his first 
Letter, as a single denomination, so closely and harmoniously link- 
ed together as to be fairly answerable for one another's language 
and measures. But before he gets through, he finds it convenient 
to contradict this account of them, and represents them as sadly at 
variance among themselves. " There are the old, the new, the 
moderate, and the rigid Calvinists. There are the Hopkinsians, 
the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists," &;c. p. 126. 

It is matter of complaint in some parts of these Letters, that we 
do not regard the Unitarian churches as churches of Christ, p. 63, 
69. But in other parts, it is assumed that we do thus regard them, 
and the complaint is, that we violate " the principles of Congrega- 
tionalism" in not placing them on an equality with our own churches. 
p. 136. — Mr. W. insists that our " Pilgrim fathers" practised "open 
communion," by which he explains himself to rpean that, besides 
their short and scriptural covenants, they had no confessions of 
faith, p. 131 — 133. But within a few pages he asserts, and asserts 
truly, that " soon after the settlement of our country," " our Pil- 
grim fathers assented" to the Westminster Confession, " as the best 
human expression of their Orthodox faith." p. 136. — The first of 
the principles of the Pilgrims, says our author, was to " advance 
the Reformation."" The Unitarians, he insists, have obeyed this 
principle in " renouncing many of the absurd doctrines of the Pil- 
grims ;" while the Orthodox have disobeyed it, in " renouncing 
several of their essential doctrines." p. 139. How the Unitarians 
have obeyed this principle in renouncing their errors, and the Or- 
thodox have disobeyed it in doing (as Mr. W. will have it) the same 
thing, he does not inform us. — In one place, he represents the 
Pilgrims as having been so liberal in their terms of communion, 
that they would have admitted Unitarians to their churches, p. 133. 
But in a few pages after, addressing Mr. Stuart and the Orthodox 
of the present day, he says, "They (the Pilgrims) would not have 

* Mr. W. here quotes, as Unitarians have done before hhn to the thousandth time, as 
an apology for their errors, the words of the venerable John Robinson, '' The Lord has 
more tnith yet to break forth out of his holy word." Hut instead of findino- more 
truth in the Bible than Robinson thous^ht he found, our modern '' Reformers" find vastly 
less. The g^rand difficulty with the Pilgrims, as Unitrtrians represent the matter, is, not 
that they did not find all the truth which the Bible contains, but that they thought they 
found much more than it does contain. 



44 Review of 

acknowledged your belief as sound or Orthodox, and had they 
given vent to their persecuting spirit, would have banished you 
from the Commonwealth." p. 139'. — On one pnge, our a'ltlior 
represents the doctrine of unconditional election" as ^^ peculiar to 
Calvin." p. 116. But on another, he classes "unconditional 
election" an\Dng the doctrines which " the Reformers (not Calvin 
alone) received without discussion," and held in common luith the 
Papists, pp. 113, 114. — He says he " well knows" that Professor 
Stuart declares the doctrines of election and reprobation, in his 
" conversation, preaching, and publications." p. 152. Again, he 
represents the Professor, and the Orthodox clergy generally, as 
720^ daring to acknowledge these points, " either in private, or in 
the pulpit. I have never heard the doctrine of reprobation preach- 
ed but once in New England." p. 139. — -In some places, Mr. W. 
makes the Orthodoxy of the present day the same identically as 
that of Calvin, p. 98. In others, he blames the Orthodox for 
" attempting to make the less informed part af the community be- 
lieve that they still adhere to tlie all-important sentiments of Cal- 
• vin." p. 117. — At one time, we are represented as adopting" va- 

rious measures for binding down the present generation to the Cal- 
vinistic articles of the Assembly's Catechism." p. 130. And then 
again, our author asks, " Can you aver that your denomination in 
New England believes the Westminster Confession of faith ? 1 will 
quote a few passages which I believe most of you concur in reject- 
ing.'*^ p. 137. — Mr. W. sometimes speaks of the Orthodox and 
Unitarians as constituting but one denomination. " Have you not 
declared that regularly organized churches (meaning the Unitarian 
churches) oi your own denomination, were not Christian church- 
es V p. 146. At other times, he represents the Unitarians as a 
distinct denomination. " I have nothing to say for or against the 
Unitarian denomination.'*^ p. 1 63. — " A majority of the Orthodox 
denomination," he tells us, on one occasion, believe respectable 
Unitarians, such as he had previously named, to he good Christians^ 
and that all good Christians of every sect will be saved." p. 80. 
But within less than two j)ages, vi^e are told again, that " no Or- 
thodox man will consider a person of known Unitarian views as 
hopefully pious.'''' p. 82. — Near the top of p. 54, our author says, 
" Every man must determine for himself whether he is qualified 
to" come to the Lord's table. But near the bottom of the same 
page, a different account is given of the matter, and persons must 
exhibit " evidence of Christian character,^* in order to be welcomed 
to the ordinances of Christ. — Sometimes, the members of our new 
societies are represented as " taxed to ihe full extent of their abil- 
ity ;^* and then they are promised ari exemption from ministerial 
taxes," and that " nothing but their voluntary contributions will be 
required" of them. p. 62. — Now we have " a /ar^e/M7ic/ for the 
express purpose of establishing and maintaining such societies," p. 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 45 

62 ; and then they must be supported " by a system of the most 
pertinacious begging. ^^ p. 147. 

We have here thrown together some of the manifest zncon5i5^en- 
cies and contradictions which have occurred to us, on a cursory 
perusal of these Letters. Oar readers will decide, in view of 
them, how much confidence is to be placed in a writer, who thus 
crosses his own track, in all possible directions, and without seem- 
ing to know it, just as his convenience or his inclination requires. 

But we have still further detractions to make from whatever rem- 
nants of confidence any of our readers may still be disposed to 
place in the representations of JMr. Whitman. He very properly 
observes, in his conclusion, that "the first question at issue is this, 
Are the principal statements in this publication substantially true ?" 
And he has " authorized" a friend publicly " to assert, that he has 
staled no ficts, ivhichhe cannot fully substantiate in a court of jus- 
tice."'^ We have shown already that many of his statements can- 
not be true. But as so much is depending on this point, we feel 
justified in taking it up separately, and presenting in one view — 
not all the misrepresentations we have detected and marked, for 
this would be tedious and unnecessary — but some of those which 
seem the most palpable, and which, in the fewest words, may be 
contradicted and refuted. In doing this we shall proceed in the 
order of pages, and shall have frequent occasion, as we pass along, 
to recur to statements which have been previously examined. 

1. Speaking of the creed of the Theological Seminary at Ando- 
ver, Mr. W. says, " Scarcely an ardcle of the whole can be ex 
pressed in Scriptural language." p. 6. — The sense of many of 
these articles, not to say the most of them, " can be expressed in 
Scriptural language. "f 

2. Addressing Professor Stuart, p. 7, he says, ^' Would you in- 
quire into the meaning of the Scriptures, so as to communicate to 
your pupils the result of your investigations ? No. This liberty 
you have sacrificed." — This liberty Mr. S. has not sacrificed, but 
exercises it freely and continually. 

3. Again ; " Would you inquire into the peculiar religious opin- 
ion of other Christian denominations, so as to ascertain if their be- 
lief is not founded on the plain teachings of inspiration 1 No. This 
liberty you have sacrificed." — Mr. S. has not sacrificed this liberty 
more than the other. 

* See Christian Register for Jan. 15. 

t Our author lays great stress, in this connexion, upon the ' very words of Scripture.' 
But in the judgement of leading Unitarians, the words of Scripture are no better than any 
other words, as the whole Bible is declared to be a 'human composition.' See Christian 
Examiner for Jan. 1830, p. 347. But not to insist on this ; a creed, set forth in the very 
words of Scripture would not answer {he purpose of a public confession of faith, which is 
to exhibit, not the language of the Bible, but the received sense of it. Most sects may be 
able to set forth sojne af their peculiarities in the precise words of Scripture. The Shaker 
attempts to justify his whirling dance by quoting, ' Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die V 
The lan^age of Scripture is not unfrequeutly perverted to the support of positions which 
are wholly unscriptural. 



46 Review of 

4. Mr. W. speaks, p. 9, of the creed adopted by the church in 
the Seminary at Andover, as " long," and " very peculiar," leaving 
the impression that it is the same as that subscribed by the Profes- 
sors. Whereas the creed of this church is short and simple, and 
does not differ in any important respect from those received by 
other Orthodox churches. 

5. Speaking of a discourse delivered by Rev. Mr. Duncan of 
Baltimore " before the students in the Theological Seminary at 
Princeton," Mr. W. says, " These remarks were not relished by 
the Rev. Dr. Miller, the Principal of the Institution.^' p. 13. — Dr. 
Miller is not " Principal of this Institution." 

6. " For this offence he (Mr. Duncan) was summoned before 
the delegates of the Synod." — Synods are not delegated bodies. 

7. " Being unable to make him (Mr. Duncan) renounce his error, 
or, in reality, place the human creed before the Bible, they excom- 
municated him." — Nobody wished Mr. D. to place a " human 
creed before the Bible." 

8. "This able and eloquent divine was publicly excommunicated 
from the Orthodox denomination, because he would not acknowl- 
edge the utility and supreme importance of human creeds." — Mr. 
D. was not excommunicated, ' because he would not acknowledge 
the supreme importance of human creeds ;' nor was he ' ex-commu- 
nicated from the Orthodox denomination.' 

9. Speaking of the meeting-houses secured by trust-deeds, p. 
14, Mr. W. says, "The control of the building is vested in the 
hands of certain Orthodox Trustees ...... ivho will furnish the 

minister whenever the proprietors refuse to subscribe the human 
creed." — We know of no trust-deed in this country which gives to 
trustees such a power as this. 

10. " At this very time, not one in ten of those who occupy 
your trust-deed churches, can be allowed to vote for the minister he 
is obliged to maintain." — If our author includes minors and females 
in this assertion. It may be true ol many churches not held by trust 
deeds. If these are not included, It is false. 

11 " I am happy to learn," says Mr. W., that very few individ- 
uals have been found to purchase pews which are fettered 

by the unhallowed restrictions of trust-deeds." — We are happy 
to inform our author that he Is mistaken on this subject. 

12. Speaking of Mr. Hubbard's " practice of exchanging with 
Unitarians," p. 16, Mr. W. says, "This circumstance alone indu- 
ced some Orthodox ministers in the vicinity of Lunenburg to make 
great exertions to prevent his installation." — " This circumstance 
alone " did not induce these ministers to oppose the installation of 
Mr. Hubbard. 

13. These ministers " went to Andover, and earnestly solicit- 
ed information derogatory to the character of Mr. H." — 

They did not solicit information derogatory to his character, but 
merely wished to know the truth. 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 47 

14. " The Rev. Mr. Payson, having obtained the desired mis- 
representations'^^ &:c. — Mr. Payson did not desire to obtain mis- 
representalions. 

J 5. Mr. H. compelled those who had circulated unfavorable re- 
ports " to confess their wickedness and agency in the base under- 
taking." — Neither of them "confessed wickedness," except the in- 
dividual in Middleion, and his confession was extorted. See p. 142. 

16. Mr. Braman "was earnestly beset by Orthodox ministers 
for information injurious to the reputation of Mr. H." — Mr. Bra- 
man was not " beset for information injurious to Mr. H.," but was 
asked to state what he believed to be true. 

17. " iMr. Payson went into Lunenburg to circulate the slan- 
derous reports." — Mr. Payson did not go " into Lunenburg to cir- 
culate slanderous reports." He went in the regular discharge of 
professional duty ; and while there, acquainted his friends, as he 
felt bound to do, with what he had heard respecting the character 
of Mr. H. 

15. Mr. Payson "was asked, before witnesses, if he should 
have taken such a step, had not Mr. H. exchanged with Unitari- 
ans. His answer was, No." — We are authorised by Mr. Payson 
to declare, that " no such answer ivas given hy him to any such 
question." 

19. Mr. Payson "also intimated, that Mr. Putnam of Fitch- 
burg, and Mr. Fisher of Harvard, in connexion with himself, had 
taken Lunenburg under their special protection." He " intimated 
no such thing." 

20. This " instance of misrepresentation " was " originated and 
executed by Orthodox individuals to prevent a minister of their own 
sentiments from exchanging with Unitarians." — It was not origina- 
ted or executed for any such purpose. See p. 142. 

21. Mr. Payson "desires" his friends in Lunenburg "to put 
the slanderous reports into immediate circulation." — He did not 
desire them to circulate slanderous reports, — but told them what he 
deemed the truth, and wished them to make such use of it as they 
thought proper. 

22. " This wicked contrivance " was got up, " simply and 
solely because Mr. H. would exchange with Unitarians." — All false. 

23. " Many are deterred from exchanges with Unitarians by 
the various threatenings of your leaders." p. 19. — This assertion 
is undoubtedly false. 

24. If Orthodox ministers exchange with Unitarians, " the ma- 
jority commence their measures of persecution by excluding them 
from the Association, by refusing to acknowledge them as Chris- 
tian ministers," &ic. p. 21. — No instance is adduced, or can be, 
to justify this representation. 

25. Mr.W. speaks repeatedly of an "unholy combination of Or- 
thodox leaders to regulate the exchanges of their brethren." — A 
combination for this purpose does not exist. 



48 Review of 

26. " Orthodox candidates have obtained settlements over com- 
paratively liberal societies, by concealing their real theological sen- 
timents.^^ p. 21. — We have never known an instance of such con- 
cealment, and presume none can be mentioned. 

27. An Orthodox minister is spoken of, p. 21, who, previous to 
his call, "manifested a willingness to be liberal in his ministerial 
intercourse." — This minister assures us that, previous to his call, 
he said nothing on the subject of ministerial intercourse. 

28. " He continued for a year or more to preach practical dis- 
courses, and to exchange occasionally with Unitarian ministers." — 
He did not " exchange occasionally with Unitarian ministers." 
See p. 144. 

29. ^^ One small class" of Orthodox ministers "pretend that 
their consciences will not permit them to exchange with Unitarians." 
p. 23. — The class is not small who urge this reason for not exchan- 
ging with Unitarians, but embraces nearly the entire body of the 
Orthodox clergy. 

30. " Another class pretend that they cannot exchange with 
Unitarians, because they are responsible for the sentiments deliver- 
ed from their pulpits." — This is not another class, but the same 
with that last mentioned. 

31. " In Massachusetts, for a few years past, all Ecclesiastical 
measures have been prepared in a certain conclave, nobody knows 
who they are, or where they are, invisible beings, Congregational 
cardinals, to whose decrees every Orthodox clergyman and church 
is expected to pay unlimited deference and submission." p. 24. — 
This statement, in all its parts, is entirely without foundation.* 

32. Speaking of Consociations in Connecticut, Mr. W. says, 
" Delegates from county Consociations form a general State Con- 
sociation.^^ p. 25. — There is no State Consociation in Connecti- 
cut. 

33. "He (Mr. Abbot, formerly of Coventry, Conn.) Icnezo no- 
thing about any such body as a Consociation." p. 26. — Did he 
" know nothing about" the order of the churches, where he had 
been fifteen years a pastor ? and " nothing about " the Platform 
of these churches ? 

34. " If a Consociation existed, he certainly could not feel him- 
self amenable to their usurped authority." — He was pastor of a 
Consociated church — a church which had acted in Consociation, 
and which, on a previous occasion, had called the Consociation to- 
gether to settle a difficulty in its own bosom. He was a member 
and the Register of a ministerial Association, formed expressly on the 
basis of the Saybrook Platform, which requires the existence of 
Consociations. He was present in Association when the church 

* This proposition is quoted in the Letters before us j but our author makes himself 
fully responsible for it, by affirming that it is " true to the very letter." 



Letters on Religious Jjiberty. 49 

in Marlborough was by vote admitted to connexion with the Con- 
sociation, and, as Register, attested the vote.^ 

35. "The church (in Coventry) would not consent to a mutu- 
al Council, unless the members should be expressly invited, not 
to hear and give advice respecting their troubles, but to dissolve the 
pastoral relation." — The church voted (Nov. 21, 1810,) " that we 
will unite with the Rev. Abiel Abbot and the society in choosing 
and calling a mutual Council, to consider and decide on the diffi- 
culties subsisting between us and him, provided we shall be able to 
agree on the churches from which such Council shall be called." — 
Reply, kc. p. IS. 

o6. " The Rev. Abiel Abbot appeared before this .se//*-constitu- 
ted Ecclesiastical Court," (the Consociation.) — The Consocia- 
tions in Connecticut are not ''^self-constituted Ecclesiastical courts,"*"* 
but standing Councils, formed by the consent of the churches, and 
the authority of the State.-\ 

37. " The leaders of the Orthodox party in 1815 made a des- 
perate effort to establish Consociations throughout this Common- 
wealth." p. 31. — They made no " ^e.?/?eraZ'e effort." Individuals 
proposed the subject ; the proposition was considered in General 
Association, and virtually declined. 

38. Mr. W. says that a Committee of the General Association 
of Massachusetts, which made report respecting Consociations in 
1815, " loudly complain that there is no regular method by which 
authority may be exercised over sister churches." p. 34. — This 
Committee uttered no such complaint. " Christian watch and 
care " are the words they use ; — " authority " is quite another 
thing. 

39. " There is not in Massachusetts, there never had been, a 
power to call a whole church to account for its opinions." — The 
Cambridge Platform recognizes such a power, which, in the days 
of our fathers was repeatedly exercised. See p. 136. 

40. " Our ancestors did not admit that other churches could 
call any particular church to account for its sentiments." — Our an- 
cestors did admit that other churches could call a particular church 
to account for " any public offence.''^ 

41. In Dr. Channing's "essay" against Consociations, "he 
simply asserts what every body knew to be literally true at the 
time of publication." p. 38. — " Every body " did not know at that 
time, nor do they now, that what he asserted " was literally true." 
We have examined the assertion quoted by Professor Stuart, and 
shown that it was not true. See p. 120, note. 

* The church in Marlborough had "voted, that it is the desire of the church to be con- 
nected with the Consociation of Churches in the County of Tolland." Whereupon the 
Association "voted to comply with the desire of ilic church in Marlborough expressed 
in their vote. Passed in Association. John Willard, Moderator. Attest, Abiel Ab- 
bot, Scribe." See Reply to Mr. Abbot's Statement, pp. 11, 12. 

t The conductors of the Christian Disciple say, ''It is consistent for Consociations lo 
discipline their members, because they agree to be disciplined." Vol. iv. N. S. p. 105. 
7 



50 Review of 

42. " You treat an opinion of fifteen years' standing, which was 
an undisputed truth at the time of its publication, as the sentiment 
of the present year»^^ — The opinion here referred to was disputed 
by Dr. Worcester " at the time of its publication." — See Third 
Letter, &ic. p. 78. It is spoken of by Professor Stuart as having 
been ^'republished after a series of years.^^ 
43. Mr. W. asserts that an Orthodox Council at Greenfield would 
not act with Rev. Mr. Willard of Deerfield " because he would 
not submit to be catechised by them as to his religious opinions." 
p. 39. — We are authorised to say, that " none of the Council as- 
sumed the right to catechise Mr. Willard." 

44. Speaking of Rev. Mr. Field's renouncing the doctrine of the 
Trinity, our author says, " His ministerial brethren were unable or 
unwilling to discuss such controverted questions, and accordingly 
excluded him." he. p. 41. — His ministerial brethren were both 
able and willing to discuss questions with him, and had been in the 
habit of discussing them for years. 

45. Among those mentioned as having been " excluded from 
Orthodox Associations for embracing Unitarian sentiments " are 
" Rev. Preserved Smith, and Rev. Joseph Field." p. 43. — Mr. 
Smith was not excluded from the Franklin Association ; and Mr. 
Field was excluded, not for his opinions, but for unchristian treat- 
ment of [us hreihren.'^ 

46. Speaking of the conditions on which the two societies in 
West Hampton agreed to unite, Mr. W. says, ^^ The old society did 
not comply with their part of the conditions, and the seceders 
therefore refused to return." p. 44. — This statement has been 
contradicted already. See p. 144. 

47. "What had this persecuted man (Mr. Truair) done to merit 
this severe and destructive persecution ? JVothing half so bad as 
the Orthodox preachers are doing almost every day in this vicini- 
ty.^^ — It is needless to attempt refuting this statement, as Mr. W. 
himself cannot long persist in it. 

48. Rev. Thomas Worcester " had been persecuted in almost 
every possible manner by the Orthodox, because he renounced the 
doctrine of the Trinity." p. 45. — "In almost every possible man- 
ner ! .'" Who believes such a statement as this ! 

49. Mr. W. mentions it as a " circumstance of very frequent oc- 
currence in our churches," that young persons, on admission, are 
compelled to 'profess their hearty belief in the articles of a long 
human creed, which perhaps they never saw or heard till that mo- 
ment.^^ p. 47. — We never knew an instance like this, and doubt 
whether one ever occurred in our churches. 

50. Mr. W. speaks of " a bull of ex-communication thundered 

* The conduct of members of the Franklin Association is severely censured in this 
part of Mrs Whitman's Letters. We are promised a full statement from the Association 
on the subject, which, when received, we shall endeavor to lay before our readers. 



.i''- 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 61 

forth from the pulpit of the first church in Newton," against three of 
the members who had joined a Unitarian church, p. 50. — No such 
ibull of excommunication was ever thundered forth from the pulpit of 
me first church in Newton.' The church signified to the three 
members that it had withdrawn from them its watch and care, 

51 . " The same body have also more lately excommunicated two 
others for attending the communion of the Unitarian church in 
Watertown." — One of these attended meeting with the Universal- 
ists. Both had left the worship and the ordinances of the church, 
and were considered as having violated their covenant engage- 
ments. When members abandon a church, may not the church 
declare itself released from all further obligation to them } 

52. " The creed or covenant," in the second church in Brook- 
field, "was originally so liberal, that Christians of different religious 
opinions could honestly give their assent to its requisitions." p. 51. 
— The original covenant in this church was Trinitariem and Ortho- 
dox. See p. 146. 

53. "A few years after" introducing anew covenant, "the Or- 
thodox minister was dismissed." — This minister has never been 
dismissed from the church. 

54. After speaking of the excommunication of two members from 
this church Mr. W. says, " Those who passed this vote of exclu- 
sion had actually forsaken the church, and worship, and ordinances." 
— "Those who passed this vote of exclusion" were themselves the 
church, and still maintained its worship and ordinances. 

55. " Orthodox churches claim and exercise the right of choosing 
a minister." p. 54. — They claim no right of choosing a minister 
for the parish, but only of choosing pastors for themselves."^ 

56. When the Trinitarian church in Waltham separated from 
the second society, Mr. W. says they took away " the Bible" with 
them. — ^We have shown that they did not take it. See p. 147. 

57. He charges the Orthodox with " setting up a human creed 
so that few can subscribe it, and then allowing those few (the 
church) to hold the property of the congregation.''^ p. 55. — No 
one has ever claimed that the church should hold the property of 
the congregation. 

58. Mr. W. represents the Orthodox church in Waltham as 
consisting of " ten male members." p. 56. — He might easily have 
known that this statement is not true. 

59. He charges the Orthodox with aiming to have the laws "al- 
tered, so that a majority of the male communicants shall hold the 
meeting-house and funds." — No person wishes the laws so " al- 
tered, that a majority of the male communicants shall hold the 
meeting-house," or any parocA/a/ property. 

60. " I regard the Orthodox Conferences of churches as but an- 
other name for Consociations." p. 58. — Between Conferences of 

* The case of ihefew trust-deeded churches has been already considered. See p. 148 
They form the only exception to the remark above made. 



52 Review of 

churches and Consociations, there is not, we had alniost said, the 
remotest resemblance. 

61. "The liberty of individual churches is destroyed by these 
Conferences. They bring ministers and churches into utter servi- 
tude.^^ — This representation is false — as hundreds of ministers 
and churches can testify from their own experience. 

The next subject of complaint, proceeding in the order of pages, 
is the " measures " taken by the Orthodox " for organizing and 
establishing feeble churches." To notice particularly all the mis- 
representations of our author on this subject, would be impossible. 
They are almost as numerous as his sentences. The account he 
has given can hardly be called a caricature, as a caricature im- 
plies some rude resemblance to an intended reality ; whereas this 
statement, in most parts, resembles nothing, unless it be the hideous 
image in the distempered imagination of its author. A few sen- 
tences only will be given in justification of these remarks. 

62. " One hundred" dollars " is literally extorted from a single 
lady by over-persuasion," towards building the meeting-house in 
Billerica. p. 59. — This money, we are authorized to say, was 
brought to the house of Mr. Bennett, unsolicited. II 

63. " Because the heathen people in Billerica will not permit your 
Missionary to insult them in their own houses, the cry of persecu- 
tion is raised." — We have never heard the people of Billerica call- 
ed heathen except by Mr. Whitman. The Orthodox have no 
Missionary in that place, nor any one who wishes to 'insult 
the people in their own houses.' 

64. " For supporting the feeble society," " an appeal is made to 
the Domestic Missionary Society, which has large funds for this 
very object." p. 63. — There is no " Domestic Missionary Society" 
in Massachusetts, nor any other Society " which has large funds'^ 
for the object here specified. 

65. "It is generally understood that alargefund has been raised, 
for the express purpose of establishing and maintaining Orthodox 
Societies within the borders of Unitarian parisnes." — No such fund 
has been raised, or has ever existed. 

66. Speaking of the Orthodox who have left Unitarian congrega- 
tions, Mr. W. asks, " Were they obliged to hear doctrines advoca- 
ted which shocked their very souls ? JVo." — And we as confi- 
dently answer. Yes. fn many instances, \hey have been " obliged 
to hear doctrines advocated which shocked their very souls." 

67. Mr. W. charges us with wishing " to confound the two classes" 
of Universalist " together, and to permit the unlearned to believe 
that Unitarians have embraced the obnoxious sentiment" that there 
will be no punishment hereafter, p. 72. — In the article to which 
he refers, we expressly distinguished between the two classes of 
Universalists, and were careful to inform our readers that we placed 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 53 

Unitarians in that class who believe in a " future, disciplinary pun- 
ishment."* 

6S. " The whole Orthodox party in Germany have em- 
braced the doctrine of universal salvation." p. 73. — This assertion 
is not supported even by the authority of Mr. Dvvight, whom our 
author quotes. It is expressly contradicted by the testimony of 
some of the principal German theologians and commentators. f 

69. Speaking of the charge against some Unitarians, that they re- 
gard " the Bible not as an inspired book, and that its decisions are 
not final and authoritative in the Christian church," Mr. W. says, "A 
more false and injurious statement was never published." p. 76. — 
Our readers well know that some Unitarians do regard " the Bible 
as not an inspired book ;" and how they can receive " its decis- 
ions as final and authoritative in the Christian church," while they 
charge it with false reasonings, mistakes, errors, and contradictions 
we are not able to perceive. J 

70. He says that Canonicus, in his Letters to Dr. Channing, 
" first attempts to prove that Unitarians do not believe in the per- 
sonal existence of an almost omnipotent Devil." p. 77. — Canoni- 
cus attempts to prove no such thing. 

71. Our author speaks, p. 79, of" an extemporaneous discourse" 
(or sermon) " delivered by the Rev. Mr. Green of Boston, at an 
evening lecture in Salem," " to an audience composed principally 
of females." — This discourse or sermon was a mere address of a 
few minutes, and not delivered at a lecture, nor in the evening, nor 
" to an audience composed principally of females." 

72. Of the American Education Society Mr. W. says, ^' A con- 
siderable amount of your funds has been obtained from Unitarians, 
with the express understanding that indigent students of their own 
sentiments should be assisted." p. 81. — This false statement has 
been sufficiently refuted. See p. 148. 

73. " If the beneficiary washes to receive his collegiate educa- 
tion at Cambridge, every possible exertion is made to frighten 
him from such a proceeding." — This is not true. 

74. " All those beneficiaries, who reside at the same literary in- 
stitution, are obliged to assemble together once a month." — Advis- 
ed, expected — not " obliged." 

75. " They must make one of their number the secretary of 

the body, who is to note all aberrations in thought, word, and 

deed." — Entirely without foundation. 

76. " One" of the prayers " is to be especially for their secre- 
tary, that he may be faithful in recording their errors and failings." 
—All false. 

* See Spirit of the Pilgrims, Vol. iii. p. 210. 

t See Christian Spectator, Dec. 1829, p. 671, and Boston Recorder for Jan. 5. 
X The reader may leemi in what estimation some American Unitarians hold the Bible, 
by consulting a Tract, entitled " An Exhibition of Unitarianism." pp. 6—12. 



w 



54 Review of 

77. Speaking of the doxologies of Watts, our author affirms that 
he " would have expunged them all from his hymn book before 
he died, had he not disposed of the copy-rightof the work." p. 87. 
— This is said, not only without evidence, but against evidence.* 

Mr. W. tells a story, p. 87, of " a high-school established in 
Geneseo, New York." 

" Three young men, graduates of Harvard University, entered into written 
engagements to take charge of the institution. Tl^e simple circumstance of 
their receiving degrees at Cambridge was sufficient to arouse tlie enmity of 
Orthodox leaders. Accordingly the minister of the place drew up a circular," 
referring to all three of the young men (which Mr. W. quotes) " and endeavored 
to obtain the names of the influential inhabitants of the county." " But it was 
generally known in that region that one of the three men was Orthodox in his 
opinions, and but few names could be obtained. A new memorial was there- 
fore circulated, with the word two inserted in the place of three; and to this 
a large number of signatures was attached. But instead of presenting that to 
the stockholders, they took the names and placed them on the one I have copi- 
ed. It seems they could not, in consistency with their duty to God, have 
young men from Cambridge, but they could practise a gross deception in per- 
tect consistency with this duty." 

Such is the statement of our author. Its various misrepresen- 
tations should be corrected as follows : — 

78. " The simple circumstance''^ that these young men received 
*' their degrees at Cambridge was" not " sufficient to arouse the 
enmity of Orthodox leaders." Do the Orthodox oppose all, in- 
discriminately, who have received their degrees at Cambridge ? 
It was well understood that two of these young men were Unitari- 
ans, and respecting the third many were not satisfied. 

79. " The minister of the place" did not draw up " the circular" 
which our author quotes. 

80. It is not true that " but few names could be obtained" to 
this circular. Almost all the names that were obtained, amount- 
ing to nearly or quite three hundred, were obtained to it. 

81. It is not true that, on the failure of this circular or memori- 
al, a new one was " circulated, with the word two inserted in the 
place of three, to which a large number of signatures was attach- 
ed." A memorial, with the word two inserted, was circulated in 
the single township of Lima (not because the people refused to 
subscribe the other, for that was not presented to them) and ob- 
tained twenty-six signers. 

82. It is not true, therefore, that, by " a gross deception,^^ a 
large number of signatures" was taken from this latter memorial, 
and appended to the former, which had but " a/ew names. "f 

83. ^'in 1804," says our author, " it was proposed to convert 
the Convention into a General Association, and confer upon it the 
powers usually assumed and exercised by that body." p. 89. — No 
such proposal was ever made in Convention. It was pro- 
posed in 1804, that the Convention recommend the adoption of 
certain measures preparatory to the formation of a General Asso- 
dation ; but not that it convert itself into a General Association ! 

* See Spirit of the Pilgrims, Vol. ii. p. 338. t See Note F. 



Letters on Religious Liberty, 55 

Mr. W. represents it as a " most daring" measure, that, in 1822, 
the Convention of Congregational ministers in Massachusetts, a 
body containing the Pastors of several hundred churches, were 
requested to define a church, 

'' The North Worcester Association proposed the following question : ''What 
is a Christian church, with which we ovglil to liold coniinunion, as such?" The 
whole business had been planned and concluded on with intended secrecy in 
Park Street vestry. Tiie committee wiiich had been previously selected was 
chosen, consistintr of" twelve orthodox members and one unitarian, and author- 
ized to report at the next annual meetinof. Exertion was made to have the re- 
port printed and circulated during the year, but was frustrated. Your friend, 
Dr. Woods, was chairman of this committee ; but he did not find all the other 
members so tractable as he wished. He wrote a dictatorial letter to the Rev. 
Mr. Stearns, of Bedford ; and received in answer a few homely but wholesome 
truths. However, the report was finished, and at the meetmg in 1823, was 
read to the convention. A motion was made by yourself to have it printed. 
But you mistook your men. No notice was taken of your desire ; but the fol- 
lowing vote quickly passed : '' That the convention icilltake no fdrthkr orier on 
the subject.'' And what was the substance of this famous report. Simply this. 
That a Christian church, with ichich we ought to hold communion, must sub' 
scribe the orthodox creed.'" 

" Now, Sir, what was the design of your leaders in this most daring attempt ? 
What objects did you expect to accomplish ^ Five. First, you wished to learn 
what portion of the Orthodox ministers were prepared to take up arms against 
the sacred rights of Unitarians.'' Secondly, you wished to ascertain what 
portion were ready to adopt a human creed, instead of the Bible, as their stand- 
ard of religious truth. Thirdly, you wished to drive the liberal clergy from 
the convention, either by adopting a doctrinal test, or by a direct vote of ex- 
clusion. Fourthly, you wished to know how far public sentiment would sup- 
port you in withdrawing ministerial intercourse from Unitarians. And Fifthly, 
and especially, you wished to obtain complete possession of the funds of the 
conventioa." 

This statement requires the following corrections : — 

84. "The ivhole business had" not "been planned and concluded 
on with intended secrecy in Park Street Vestry." There had been 
previous consultation on this and other subjects at meetings in the 
Vestry ; but these were public meetings — publicly notified, and 
numerously attended. 

85. It is manifestly untrue that a " Corc\m\X{ee^ previously select- 
ed^ was chosen ;" since several Unitarian gentlemen, who were 
chosen on the Committee, declined serving, and others were sub- 
stituted in their place. Dr. Bancroft, the only Unitarian on the 
Committee, was absent from the meeting, or it is likely he would 
have declined also. 

86. " Dr. Woods, Chairman of this Committee," did not write 
"a dictatorial letter" on the subject " to the Rev. Mr. Stearns of 
Bedford." 

87. " The substance of the report " was not " that a Christian 
church, with which we ought to hold communion, must subscribe 
the Orthodox creed." Not a word was said in the report about 
^subscribing an Orthod jx creed.'' 

88. Neither of the five objects stated by Mr. W. were expected 
or desired to be accomplished by this measure, as is evident from 
the following extract from the report itself : 



66 Review of 

" As this Convention is not an elected or representative body, it would obvi- 
ously be inadmissible that they should attempt to exercise ecclesiastical pow- 
er, either legislative or judicial ; or do any thing which should be intended in 

THE LEAST DEGREE TO INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF MINISTERS OR CHURCHES 

TO JUDGE AND ACT FOR THEMSELVES." And " to prevent ail possible occasion of 
misapprehension, as to the views of this Committee, they beg leave to declare it 
to be the united result of their deliberations, that after the members of the Con- 
vention shall have simply expressed their opinion respecting this report, they 
CANNOT, with propiety, adopt any further measures respecting it, but must 
leave it to the unbiassed consideration of ministers and churches." 

How a report, expressing sentiments such as these, was to be 
made the instrument of " driving the liberal clergy from the con- 
vention," obtaining complete possession of the funds,^^ and accom- 
plishing other nefarious projects specified by Mr. W., it is not 
easy for common minds to perceive. He informs us that he came 
to a knowledge of the secrets of the Orthodox clergy in regard to this 
subject^ by conversation with a student in divinity. But, on sup- 
position that the Orthodox at that time had secret designs upon 
the rights and liberties of Unitarians (which we utterly deny, and 
which the report of their committee shows to be false) is it cer- 
tain that this student was correctly apprized of them ? Is it cer- 
tain that what he said was any thing more than surmise and conjec- 
ture ? Aild is the declaration of an obscure and unauthorised in- 
dividual (admitting that Mr. W. has reported it correctly) suffi- 
cient ground on which to accuse and calumniate a large and res- 
pectable body of clergymen — as our author has since often done — 
in direct contradiction, not only to their individual protestations, 
but to the language of their report ? 

Passing over several pages of insinuation and scandal unworthy 
even to be contradicted, we come to the following declaration res- 
pecting the sentiments of President Edwards : 

89. " This divine assures us, that the Being we call Father will 
be the eternal enemy and tormentor of his own children, without 
any fault of their own,''"' p. 99. — Will our author, in his next " en- 
larged edition," refer us to the page in Edwards where this senti- 
ment is expressed ? 

90. The views of Zuingle " were exceedingly liberal, not dif- 
fering essentially, except in one or two points, from the liberal 
Christians of the present period." p. 103. — If by " liberal Chris- 
tians," our author means American Unitarians, his assertion has al- 
ready been sufficiently refuted. 

91. " On many other points," besides those relating to "church 
government," and " the Lord's supper," Calvin "differed, not only 
from Luther, but most essentially from the other Reformers.'*^ p. 1 04. 
— This statement will be new and strange to those acquainted 
with the history of the Reformation, and cannot be supported by 
any respectable authority. 

92. Servetus "was finally condemned to be burnt aHve in a slow 
fire of greenwood,''^ p. 105. — He was not "condemned to be 

burnt in a slow fire of green wood," 



Letters on Religions Liberty. 57 

93. *' We are informed that bis sufferings " " lasted more than 
two hours.^^ — In Professor Norton's Repository, they are said to 
have lasted '^half an lioury Vol. iii. p. 72. 

94. "Let a minister be Orthodox in sentiment, and adhere to the 
Scriptures ever so firmly, still you will not welcome him to pulpit 
exchanges, unless he luUl subscribe to the articles of a long human 
creed." p. 107. — This is false. The writer of this article has been 
in the constant practice of exchanges with Orthodox ministers for 
the last fifteen years, and never subscribed a human creed. Very 
many of his brethren in the ministry can say the same. 

95. j\lr. W. represents, that when the members of Unitarian 
churches 'change their religious opinions,' and wish "a dismission 
and recommendation to another church," their request is uniformly 
granted, pp. TOO and 112. — We could mention a variety of in- 
stances in which such requests have been refused. 

96. " Orthodox ministers formerly lived on terms of ministerial 
intercourse with their Unitarian brethren.', p. 111. — "Orthodox 
ministers," in general, never "lived on terms of ministerial inter- 
course " with known Unitarians. 

97. " A combination has latterly been formed by the leaders of 
ihe " Orthodox " party, to prevent the interchange of kind offices 
and professional labors." — No such combination has been formed 
or exists. Cannot individuals come to the same conclusion, on a 



ion r 



?" 



plain question of duty, without formal " combinat 

98. " On those points in which the Reformers differed from the 
Catholics, they had very Utile agreement among themselves." p. 1 12. 
— This assertion has been examined and refuted. Seep. 132. 

99. " The doctrines of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the 
atonement, the utter depravity of human nature, unconditional elec- 
tion, endless punishment, and the like," " were not allowed to be 
examined." "The Reformers received them without discussion." 
p. 114. — These doctrines were largely discussed by the Reformers, 
as their works testify. 

100. Mr. W., having quoted the articles of the Synod of Dort, as 
abridged (caricatured) by Tilenus, adds, "No one acquainted 
with the writings of Calvin will deny that these are his real senti- 
ments." p. 116. — These are not tlie real sentiments of Calvin, but 
a vile and criminal perversion of them. See p. 135. 

101. Speaking of discussions held some years ago between Profes- 
sors Murdock and Stuart, and Dr. Dana, our author says, Dr. Dana 
" addressed a communication to the directors of the Christian 
Spectator, and requested its insertion in a forthcoming number. 
This request being denied, he went on himself, but was unsuccess- 
ful in obtaining satisfaction, p. 124. — It happens that Dr. Dana's 
communication was inserted in the Spectator, and that he made no 
journey to New Haven on the subject. 

102. Mr. W. represents the Orthodox as " agreeing heartily " 



58 Review of 

in the three following particulars, and in these only : " First in using 
certain words, while you attach to them very different ideas. Sec- 
ondly, in making a human creed, instead of the Bible, your stand- 
ard of religious truth. And thirdly, in denouncing and condemn- 
ing those who will not yield to your dictation^ p. 127. — We shall 
not undertake to inform the gentleman in how many particulars 
beyond these we agree or disagree : We certainly do not agree in 
these. 

103. " Those who will not make this creed of the dark ages (the 
Assembly's Catechism) their standard of religious truth, must be 
excluded from your communion.''^ p. 130. — We could refer to great 
numbers, who have not made " this creed of the dark ages their 
standard of religious truth," nor adopted it as their Confession of 
faith, who are in full communion in the Orthodox churches. 

104. "Not a church (in Connecticut) has the least independence 
left. All have virtually abandoned the Congregational order,^^ 
p. 135. — This will be a new discovery to the numerous, long estab- 
lished, and well regulated Congregational Churches of Connecti- 
cut. 

105. " Unitarians " have regarded the parishes of their ministe- 
rial brethren (meaning the Orthodox) as sacred ground J^ p. 136. 
— They have often intruded into the parishes of Orthodox minis- 
ters, with a view to establish Unitarian worship. See p. 155. 

106. "They have urged Unitarian minorities in" Orthodox "so- 
cieties to keep quiet, to pay their ministerial taxes, to attend the 
Orthodox preaching, and to submit peaceably to Orthodox usurpa- 
tions of their rights." — They have publicly and strongly " urged 
Unitarian minorities in Orthodox societies " to separate and estab- 
lish worship by themselves.* 

107. "Did the Orthodox benefactors of Harvard University bind 
down their legacies to the maintenance of their religious opinions ? 
No." p. 142. — The Henchman legacy was left on the express condi- 
tion that the persons receiving the avails of it should " profess and 
teach the principles of the Christian religion, according to the well 
known Confession of faith drawn up by the Synod of the churches of 
JVeio England" 

Mr. W. intimates, p. 147, that "an Orthodox church has lately 
excommunicated some of its members for exercising the liberty of 
attending the communions of another Orthodox church ;" and 
that "an Orthodox Council, with Rev. Mr. Storrs at its head, has 
sanctioned its proceedings." — We have ascertained the church to 
which he refers, and have found that his statement is, as usual, in- 
correct, 

108. This Orthodox church has not ' excommunicated some of 

* See a long article in the Ciiristlan Register for July 23 and 30, 1825, in which various 
reasons are urged to show, that Unitarians, residing in Orthodox parishes, ought to sepa- 
rate, and support pubhc worship by themselves. 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 69 

its members for attending the communions of another Orthodox 
church." 

109. The Rev. Mr. Storrs was 7iot ' at the head of a Council' 
convened at the request of this church. 

1 1 0. The Result of this Council contains 7io intimation that the 
members in question ought to be excommunicated."^ 

111. Speaking of a town in this vicinity,where an Orthodox so- 
ciety has been formed within a few years, Mr. W. says, " One of 
your disorganizers enters the peaceful fold, and succeeds in turning 
some of the flock from their present pastor." p. 156. — We have 
shown already that not a few of the flock had turned from their 
pastor, and that he had virtually turned from them, before the 
alleged " disorganiser " came among them. See p. 151. 

112. "Their secession takes from the annual salary /remove to 
ten dollars.'^ — A single individual of the seceders paid more than 
this sum. 

1 ] 3. " Unitarianism has had nothing whatever to do " with the 
recent persecutions in Switzerland. f p. 157. — "W'e have shown 
that it has had much to do with them. See p. 153. 

114. Separation from the national church was the cause of per- 
secutions in Switzerland." — " It is not separation,^^ says Dr. Smith, 
" but vital religion, that is the real object of hatred ; for many 
harassments and injuries have been committed upon pious persons, 
both ministers and others, who remain attached to the established 
church." 

115. Mr. W. says, in conclusion, " I have nothing to say for, 
or against the Unitarian denomination." p. 163. — His readers will 
judge whether he has had " nothing to say for the Unitarian de- 
nomination.^^ 

We have thus run our eye over the pages of these Letters, for 
the purpose of exposing, in one view, some of their more palpable 
misrepresentations. The result is before our readers, and they 
must be left to draw their own conclusions. We only protest 
against their concluding that all the statements of our author are 
fair and accurate, except those which have been contradicted. For 
we intended, in the outset, to present only a selection from his mis- 
takes and errors, and our limits have compelled us to be even more 
brief than we intended. The false and slanderous insinuations, 
and the anonymous tales of scandal, with which these Letters 
abound, we have not thought it necessary, except in a few instan- 
ces, so much as to notice. And in regard to some of the persons 
and places which are named, although we know enough to be sat- 
isfied that the statements are incorrect, still as we have not yet re- 

* See Appendix, Note G. 

t Tliis assertion is repeated, p. 160. The false statements which have been contradict- 
ed in the foregoing pages are often repeated — some of them viany times. Had we been 
intent on numbers, the contradiction and exposure of them might with propriety have been 
in every instance, repeated. This, however, has not been done. See Note H. 




60 Review of 

ceived full and particular information, we have chosen to pass them 
over in silence. In some instances, we have omitted whole pages 
together, because the misrepresentations were so numerous, and so 
closely connected, that we could only condemn them in the gross. 
We have omitted, too, almost entirely, the many instances of false 
and injurious statement, in which the error could be resolved into 
a difference of religious opinion. Indeed, instead of noticing and 
correcting all the misrepresentations which we have observed, we 
have — to use a favorite expression of some of the friends of our 
author — we 'have but just dipped into the subject.' We have 
but given a specimen of what could be done, were it at all worth 
while to follow him, in all his devious and distempered wanderings. 
In view of the whole, we shall not indeed retort the courteous lan- 
guage which he borrows from some of his liberal friends, and 
say, ' Some ' Unitarian ' ministers Vvill lie,' (See. p. 95) but we 
must say that there is one Unitarian minister who seems morally 
incapable of touching almost any subject, connected with evangel- 
ical religion, without mis-stating and perveitiiig it. 

We shall detain our readers on these veritable Letters, only 
while we notice a few particulars, too important to be wholly omit- 
ted, and which have been passed over in the preceding remarks. 
Addressing Professor Stuart, p. 7, Mr* W. says, 

" Should a prayerful study of the Bible enable you to discover a slight error 
in some one article of this long creed, could you retain your situation as Profes- 
sor ? No. This liberty you have sacrificed. The moment you advance in re- 
ligious knowledge and truth one step beyond the ideas of this human formulary, 
you riiust vacate your oince," &c. 

We could name a certain Unitarian Professor who has long re- 
ceived the income of an endowment given for the support of a 
man of ' sound or Orthodox sentiments," — and also of a legacy 
given for I he support of one who should " profess and teach the 
principles of the Christian religion, according to the luell known 
Confession of faith drawn up by the Synod of the churches of JYew 
England.''^ If Professor Stuart's conscience is like that of this 
man, why may he not " discover a slight error in some one article 
of his long creed," and still retain his office in the Theological In- 
stitution .'' 

Mr. W. is in the habit of calling certain persons Orthodox, 
whose Orthodoxy, to make the best of it, sits very loosely upon 
them. They may aspire to the honor of the name, but obviously 
they have little more than the name. We have noticed several 
instances around us, of late, of this kind of management. Individ- 
uals, who have not committed themselves too far on the Unitarian 
side to render a retreat impossible, are beginning to call themselves 
Orthodox, and In some instances 'reformed Orthodox.' Others 
are dropping the name Unitarian, and retaining the simple one of 
Congregationalist. The Christian Examiner tells us, that were it 




Letters on Religious Liberty, 61 

not " for the existence of a Unitarian sect, there could be no ob- 
stacle to the rapid and universal prevalence of Unitarianism." * 
The plan, therefore, will be, probably, to get the sect out of the 
way as fast as possible. Instead of endeavoring to prevail as a sect, 
an attempt may be expected to mingle silently with the Orthodox 
denominations, in the prospect of leavening the whole lump. We 
certainly are not unwilling that any of those who have departed 
from us should return. If they return in good faith, and with hon- 
est and good hearts, they will be welcomed with tears of gratitude 
and joy. But we have no wish, and no intention (if we can pre- 
vent it) too see the old artsof amalgamation and concealment acted 
over again in Massachusetts. And we take this opportunity to warn 
our readers — our clerical readers especially — against the imposi- 
tions of those who are beginning to style themsolves Orthodox, 
and as such claiming our fellowship and confidence, while, if they 
have repented of their errors, they bring forth no fruit meet for re- 
pentance. 

The charge of concealment against the Unitarians, Mr. W. de- 
clares that he has never been able to understand, p. 70. And if 
he cannot understand it, after all we have said and written upon the 
subject, we despair of making it plain to hira by any further efforts. 
We can only refer him, for satisfactory explanations, to several of 
his own brethren. Let him ask Mr.Parkman what he meant, by attri- 
buting to some Unitarian ministers in Boston a ' cautious reserve, so 
that neither from their sermons, their prayers, nor their private con- 
versation, it could be inferred that they were Unitarians.' Let him 
ask Mr. Greenwood what he meant by saying, that " the lime may 
be easily remembered when, in our religious world [in and around 
Boston] there was nothing but distrust on the one side, and /eor 
and evasion on the other ; when the self-conceited theologue look* 
ed awry on the suspected heretic, and the object of his suspicion 
answered him with circumlocution and hesitation.'^'' Let him con- 
sult a certain writer in the Christian Examiner, if he knows who 
he is, and learn what he meant by saying, "I can remember the 
time, and 1 am not old, when, though Boston was/?//Z of Unitarian 
sentiment and feeling, there was no open profession of it. A dead 
silence was maintained in the pulpit on doctrinal subjects ; a silence 
which was not disturbed by the press.'''' — If Mr. Whitman's own 
brethren cannot make this subject plain and intelligible to him, it 
will be vain for us to attempt any further explanations. 

Our author informs us, that " since so many churches of the fa- 
thers have fallen into the hands of Unitarians, they have been ra- 
king up their first covenants, and restoring them to their proper and 
former standing."' p. 134. This cannot be true of all "the 
churches of the fathers," which have fallen into the hands of Uni- 

*Sept. 1830} p. 19. 




62 Review of 

tarians, since in some of them, as we are informed, they have now 
no covenants at all. The formality of covenanting is quite abol- 
ished, and the whole congregation are invited to the Lord's table 
together.* — Mr. W. says, " So long as a believer takes the Bible 
for his guide of faith and practice, and exhibits a Christian charac- 
ter, he is cordially welcomed to our celebration of the ordinances." 
And so he is, in some Unitarian societies, whether he " takes the 
Bible for his guide of faith and practice, and exhibits a Christian 
character," or not. All are invited and " cordially welcomed to 
ordinances," without regard to any of the old, invidious distinc- 
tions about faith and character. — We have now before us a copy 
of the covenants lately adopted by the first church in Salem, — the 
second in age of all the churches of New England. We say cov- 
enants ; for it seems 'the half-way covenant' is still in use there. The 
covenant, prepared for those who wish the benefit of baptism but 
are not in full communion, is truly characteristic and appropriate. 
One would suppose beforehand, that 'half way' between a Unita- 
rian church and the world could not be at a great remove from 
the latter 5 and so it is represented in ihis ' half-way covenant,' — 
which is as follows : 

" We believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah ; and we receive his religion, as 
the rule of our lives, and as a revelation from God." 

This venerable church, it w^ould seem, is not one of those which 
" have been raking up their first covenants, and restoring them to 
their proper and former standing." 

Among the numerous passages we had marked, as deserving of 
animadversion, many still remain untouched. We shall call atten- 
tion, however, to but one more ; and this as indicative of a degree 
of mental obduration which we can but poorly conceive, and shall 
not attempt to describe. It is that in which our author trifles with 
the feelings of an afflicted mother, in his own neighborhood, who 
had been called to weep over the grave of an only son. 

" All are willing the Devil should have sinful strangers and enemies ; but 
they firmly trust that sovereign grace will save all sinful acquaintances and 
friends. And such a belief the Orthodox do not hesitate to avow in conversa- 
tion. Nay ; they even proclaim it to the world in the epitaphs they place on 
the tombstones of the abandoned. The following shall suffice as one example 
of the many that might be quoted : 

' The mother's sigh, nor friendship's tear, 
Cannot recall thy spirit here ; 
Yet may a boon more blessed be given, 
Hope tells us, we shall meet in heaven.' " 

True, this son had lived an irreligious life ; and although he exhib- 

* Mr. W. complains that some Orthodox churches have violated the principles of Con- 
gregationahsm. He ought to know that some Unitarian churches {if churches they can 
be called) have lohoUij departed from these principles, and have no longer any just claim 
to be denominated Congregationalists. If any thing is essential to Congregationalism, it 
is the existence of a church, a body in covenant, in distinction from the congregation. 



Letters on Religious Liberty. 63 

ited some marks of real repentance during his last sickness, which 
might lead an affectionate mother to indulge a hope on his hehalf, 
yet the mother did neither select nor order the epitaph upon his 
tombstone. The whole was committed to another person, and the di- 
rections for the stone were given, while she was absent on 
a visit to a sick friend. Our readers must be left to form their 
own judgement of the feelings of a man who, under these cir- 
cumstances, could bring this afflicted mother before the public as 
one of those, who ' are willing the Devil should have sinful stran- 
gers and enemies, while they firmly trust that sovereign grace will 
save all sinful acquaintances and friends ; and who do not hesitate 
to proclaim this belief to the world in the epitaphs they place 
on the tomb-stones of the abandoned ! ! ! ' 

After all that has been said in the foregoing pages, it would be 
superfluous to animadvert on the qualities of Mr. Whitman's style, 
or on the coarseness, vulgarity, and profaneness of many of his re- 
marks. — It will be evident to all, that he has adopted a new and very 
extraordinary mode of theological warfare. He has sought to justify 
himself and his party, and to bring reproach upon Evangelical 
Christians all over the land, not so much by argument, or a recur- 
rence to accredited books and documents, as by ' raking up,' (to 
borrow one of his own phrases) a variety of stories, traditional re- 
ports, and exparte statements,^arraying them before the public as 
sober history, as fact, — and making these insulated and disconnected 
narratives matter of serious charge against a whole denomination. It 
is for intelligent and candid Unitarians to decide, whether they will 
sanction this new mode of controversy ; or so much as tolerate it. 
They must be aware that their opponents have it in their power to 
resort to similar measures : Do they wish them to do so ? Are 
they prepared for the result of such a course ? And are they willing 
this community should be thrown into a ferment, like that of a boil- 
ing caldron, by such a contest ? — We have been constrained to say 
things in the foregoing pages, which we were very unwilling to say, 
and which we never should have said, had we not been compelled 
to it by the false and injurious statements on which we were called 
to remark. If the controversy shall be continued in the man- 
ner in which it has commenced, we may find it necessary 
to recur to the subject again, though we certainly shall do so with 
extreme reluctance. We feel that we have more important work 
on our hands, than to engage frequently in the refutation of idle 
and slanderous stories, like those contained in these Letters, — and 
that our readers have more important work on their hands, than to 
follow us often in discussions of this nature. 

In conclusion, we have only to ask pardon of our friends for ha- 
ving detained them so long on the subject of this tedious and dis- 
gustful publication. We ask pardon especially, of those respected 



64 Review, fyc. 

correspondents who early expressed to us the opinion that the book 
was unworthy of public notice or animadversion. We kneiv it was 
unworthy, in itselj, and this conviction has been impressed upon us 
through all the labor of the foregoing Review. But when we saw 
the attempts that were made to pass it off before the public, as ac- 
curate in reasoning, correct in statement, and altogether a work of 
great merit and importance ; and when we considered that most peo- 
ple into whose hands it might fall, would read it cursorily, without suf- 
ficient attention to detect its errors, or discover its true character, 
and would receive from it impressions tending to prejudice them 
against all true religion, and thus injure them forever ; we could 
not be silent. We felt constrained, we trust in a spirit of true 
Christian charity, to take up the subject ; and we have endeavor- 
ed to pursue it in the same spirit. The result of our labors is be- 
fore the public, in whose candor and indulgence we cheerfully con- 
fide. The final issue is with HIM, who can cause the wrath of 
man to contribute to his praise,- — and before whom Mr. Whitman 
and his reviewers must shortly appear. 



NOTE. 

We have run our eye over the second edition of Mr. Whitman's 
Letters, but not with sufficient attention to be able to speak particu- 
larly of the alterations. He says he has ** expunged several senten- 
ces, corrected some inaccuracies, and cut out one whole statement 
to make room for one of a different character." The statement 
" cut out," is that relating to Rev. Mr. Truair, p. 44. As the pre- 
ceding Review was chiefly written and printed when the second edi- 
tion came into our hands, our remarks will be found to correspond 
throughout to the first edition. Mr. W. professes to be very anx- 
ious that his book may be correct, and tells of publishing *'a third 
enlarged and corrected edition." In preparing this edition, he is 
welcome to all the assistance he can derive from our labors. We 
predict, however, that the work of correction will be found im- 
mensely difficult. Like the ancient edifice, from which the name of 
the builder could not be effaced without destroying the fabric, when 
all the misrepresentations are taken from these Letters, we are con- 
fident there will be little remaining. 



APPEND IX. 



Note A. 

In the Letter of Mr. Stuart, Dr. Charming was quoted as follows. 

" We are now threatened with new tribunals, or Consociations, whose office 
it will be to try ministers for their errors, to inspect the churches, and to advise 
and assist them in the extirpation of ' heresy.' Whilst the laity are slumbering, 
the ancient and free constitution of our churches is silently undermined, and is 
crumblino; away. Since argument is insufficient to produce uniformity of opin- 
ion, recourse must be had to more powerful instruments of conviction ; I mean 

to ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS." 

*' It is a mdanchohj fact, that our long established form of Congregational 
church government is menaced, and tribunals unknown to our churches, — are 
io be introduced for the very purpose, that the supposed errors and mistakes of 
viinisters and private Christians may be tried and punished as heresies ; that is, 

AS CRIMES." 

The allegations in these quotations are among those which Mr. 
Stuart declares untrue, and from which he undertakes to vindicate 
himself and his Orthodox brethren. The conductors of the Advo- 
cate* admit that the Orthodox have not Jioic '* any intention of intro- 
ducing such tribunals amongst us," but insist that in 1815, the time 
when Dr. Channing first preferred these charges, an attempt of this 
kind was actually made ; and they remark, at length, on the pro- 
posals then under consideration by the General Association of Mas- 
sachusetts for a Consociation of the Churches. In reply to their 
remarks, it is proposed to consider the two following inquiries ; 

I. "Were the Consociations, at that time proposed, such tribunals 
as those described by Dr. Channing 1 And 

II. How was the proposal for a Consociation of the churches re- 
garded and treated by the Orthodox clergy of the State? 

To the first of these inquiries, we answer, without hesitation, in 
the negative. Dr. Channing says, " Our long established form of 
Congregational church government is menaced, and tribunals jm- 
hiown to our churches are to be introduced." But Consociations was 
not *' unknown to our churches." " The principles for it were 
explicitly set forth, in distinct propositions, by the venerable Synod, 
composed of the elders and messengers of the churches, and holden 
at Boston in 166*2." These propositions, prepared in many instan- 
ces by ihe same individuals who, only fourteen years before, assisted 
in framing the Cambridge Platform, were incorporated in the Re- 
port made to the General Association in 1815, and were spoken of 
by the Committee who presented that Report as " especially suitable 
to be adopted ; as a Consociation, founded upon them, and consis- 

* This article was first published in the Spirit of the Pilgrims for Nov. 1830, in reply 
to an culicle in the Unitarian Advocate. 



66 Appendix. 

tent with them, can be no innovation, but a recurrence to first prin- 
ciples^ a restoration of our churches to their primitive orderJ' — 
Ao-ain, proposals for a Consociation of the churches in Massachu- 
setts were made to the Convention of Congregational Ministers in 
May, 1706, and received the sanction of that body. In 1716, Dr. 
Increase Mather published his ''Disquisition concerning Ecclesias- 
tical Councils," in which he strongly urges Consociation, in the 
very form in which it was proposed in 1815, as a measure " not only 
lawful, but absolutely necessary for the establishment of the church- 
es." — The public will judge, therefore, whether the Consociations 
proposed in 1815 were, as Dr. Channing alleges, unknown to the 
churches of Massachusetts — a thing of which they had never before 
heard, and concerning which they had no knowledge. 

But ''our long established form of Congregational church govern- 
ment is menaced,'' &c. This implies two things ; first, that the 
Consociations were, in case of refusal or reluctance, to be forced 
upon the churches ; for we do not menace a man with that which is 
only offered him, and which he is free to accept or decline ; and 
secondly, that they are inconsistent with " Congregational church 
government." But so far were the proposals of 1815 from attempting 
to force Consociations on the churches, it was expressly provided in 
one of the articles, that " no church can rightfully be considered or 
treated as belonging to a Consociation icithout its own voluntary con- 
sent, or restrained from regularly withdrawing itself from a Consoci- 
ation whenever it shall see fit to withdraw." 

As to Consociations being inconsistent with " Congregational 
church government," we have several remarks to offer. In the first 
place, it is very strange that the venerable men who planted the 
Congregational churches of Massachusetts and framed the Plat- 
form, should, only fourteen years after, publish a set of proposi- 
tions, entirely inconsistent with the plan of government which they 
had previously adopted. Yet, as has been shown, the propositions, 
published and agreed on in 1662, were made " the basis" of the 
plan of Consociation proposed in 1815. — It is strange, too, that 
Doctors Increase and Cotton Mather, than whom no men better un- 
derstood the constitution of our churches, or more highly valued it, 
should urge the adoption of a measure, which went to subvert and 
destroy this constitution. Yet they did urge the adoption of Conso- 
ciations in the same general form which they were made to assume 
in the proposals of 1815. — It is also strange, that the Congregational 
churches of Connecticut should continue and flourish, for more than 
a hundred and twenty years, under the influence of a system at war 
with the first principles of Congregationalism. Yet they have con- 
tinued and flourished, during all this period, in a consociated state. 

In view of these facts, it may well be asked. What is there in a 
Consociation of Churches, inconsistent with the principles of Con- 
gregational government ? A consociation of churches is merely 
an agreement, voluntarily entered into by a convenient number of 
contiguous churches, that they will help to bear each other's bur- 
thens, and watch over one another in faithfulness and love ; that 



Appendix. 67 

they will mutually afford and accept counsel and aid in all cases of 
doubt and difficulty; and, in short, that they will walk together in a 
holy fellowship, according to some previously adopted rules. Now 
in all this we see nothing inconsistent with any principles of Con- 
gregational government. It is not inconsistent with such principles 
for a church to call a Council, when one is thought to be needed. 
But a Consociation is no other than a standing Council, previously 
agreed on, to be summoned together when a necessity occurs.* A 
Congregational church, said our fathers, " hath full power and au- 
thority within itself regularly to administer all the ordinances of 
Christ, and is not under any other ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatso- 
ever." But a body possessing originally all this power may dele- 
gate some portion of it, if it pleases — to a mutual Council, to a 
Board of reference, or to a Consociation ; and may again resume it, 
if it shall be abused. It is not inconsistent with the freedom of a 
people, or with their sovereignty, in a civil sense, that they choose 
to delegate a portion of their power. And no more is a delegation 
of ecclesiastical power inconsistent with the freedom and indepen- 
dence of the churches. In the proposals for consociation, published 
in 1815, it is stated expressly, '' that it will not be competent to the 
Consociation to hinder the exercise of the power delegated by Christ 
to each particular church, in regard to its own interior administra- 
tions and concerns, but by counsel from the word of God to direct 
and strengthen the same, upon all just occasions." 

It is further alleged by Dr. Channing that these '^ tribunals are to 
be introduced for the very purpose, that the supposed errors and 
mistakes of ministers and private Christians may be tried and pun- 
ished as heresies; that is as crimes." But this, instead of being 
"the veri/ purpose" for which consociations were proposed in 1815, 
constituted, so far as appears, no part of the purpose. Nothing is 
said or intimated in the proposals then made about '' the errors and 
mistakes of ministers and private Christians being tried and punish- 
ed as crimes," and there is no evidence that any such idea ever 
entered the minds of the Committee by whom these proposals were 
reported. Indeed, there is abundant evidence that no such thought 
could have entered their minds. It is provided, in one of the 
articles, that the connected churches " agree to hold the Consocia- 
tion as the proper body" [instead of selecting a Council for the 
purpose] " to hear and decide upon any complaint or allegation, 
touching ministerial character, against any minister belonging to it, 
to acquit, or to find guilty, to advise, sustain, or depose, as the case 
may require." But here is nothing about trying and punishing 
heretics as criminals — nothing which may not be done, and which 
has not frequently been done, by mutual Councils, under the present 
organization of our churches. 

Let it not be understood from anything here said, that we are in 

* In one of the Articles proposed in' 1815, is contained the followinj^ (provision : " The 
consociated churches with their Pastors aj^ree to regard and use the particular Consoci- 
ation to which they belong as the proper Council, made mutual by this agreement, as to 
all parties concerned, to be applied to by the churches and individuals in the connexion, 
in all cases in which the ad\ice and assistance of a Council is requisite." 



68 Appendh. 

favor of Consociations, or that we desire to see the churches of this 
Commonweahh consociated. Such an order of things may be expe- 
dient, or it may not be ; we touch not that question. The churches 
have a right to consider and judge of the matter as they please.— 
Our single object has been to show, that the Consociations, propos- 
ed in 1815, have no resemblance to the ^' tribunals" described by Dr. 
Channing, and consequently furnish no colorable ground for the 
allegations he then made. He describes " tribunals unknown to our 
churches," whereas Consociations had long been known to them. 
He describes something with which the churches were " metiaced ;" 
whereas Consociations, had the proposals for them been approved, 
would only have been oifered to the churches, to be received or re- 
jected, as they thought best. He describes something inconsistent 
with " Congregational church government ;" but Consociations are 
entirely consistent with such government. He describes " tribunals 
to be introduced, for the veri/ purpose" of trying and punishing 
heretics as criminals ; but the Consociations, proposed in 1815, 
contemplate no such object as this. Where then is the resemblance 
between the two? And how little reason did the proposal for Con- 
sociations furnish, for the sweeping charges which have been made 
to grow out of it ? 

We were to inquire, in the second place, how the proposals for 
a Consociation of the churches, of which so much has been said, 
were regarded and treated by the Orthodox clergy. It has been 
commonly represented by Unitarians, that these proposals originated 
with this body of men, and were regarded by them with great compla- 
cence. ' They intended and expected to fasten them on the churches, 
and to make them the instrument of embarrassing and removing every 
minister who could not enter into their views. But by the vigilance 
and exertions of their opponents, the people were led to take the 
alarm, and the whole project was mercifully defeated.' He can have 
had but little acquaintance with leading Unitarians, or their works, 
who does not know that this is the manner in which they have 
usually spoken of this subject ; but no representation can be more 
unfounded. — In the summer of 1814, the plan of Consociation, 
approved and confirmed by the Convention of Congregational 
Ministers in 1706, was submitted to the General Association of 
Massachusetts. A Committee was appointed to consider the same, 
and report the next year. The next year they did report, and 
their report was ordered to " be printed, and copies sent to the 
several Associations, for the purpose of ascertaining the public sen- 
timent respecting the plan of ecclesiastical order therein presented." 
At the next meeting, in 1816, the subject was called up, and finally 
disposed of In what manner ? By adopting the proposals for 
Consociation, and forcing them upon the reluctant churches ? No, 
but by leaving the churches to do just as they pleased. *' The As- 
sociation wish not to prescribe opinions to their brethren, neither 
would they recommend any reform to be made in the church, other- 
wise than in conscientious obedience to its Supreme Head. They 
believe that the Report of the Committee" (proposing Consocia- 
tions) " accords in its general principles, with the examples and 



Appendix.' 69 

precepts of the New Testament ; and in those parts of the Com- 
monwealth, in wliich the sentiments of ministers and cliurches are 
favorable to its adoption^ this Association have no objection against 
their proceeding immediately to organize themselves into Consocia- 
tions, upon the general principles of said Report." 

The truth of the case, in few words, is this ; the plan for Con- 
sociating the churches of Massachusetts, which was first attempted 
in 160:2, and again by the Mathers in the early part of the next cen- 
tury, was brouglit forward, the third time, by individuals of the 
clergy, in 1814. The proposal w-as made to a body of Orthodox 
ministers, and never went beyond these ministers. It was never 
submitted to the churches, or to the people, so far as we know, in a 
single instance. The result was, that the clergy, after much con- 
sideration, did not think proper to recommend its adoption. They 
waived the whole subject by saying, that if the churches in any part 
of the State wished to consociate, they had no objection. The plan 
of consociating the churches, therefore, whether good or bad, was 
put to rest, not by the people, not by the churches, not by Unitarians, 
(whose opposition w'eighed not a feather in the minds of those to 
whom the subject was submitted) but solely through the influ- 
ence OF THE Orthodox clergy. 

We say these things, not because we are anxious that our clergy 
should have the credit of this measure, if any credit belongs to it ; 
but because what we have stated is the truth, and truth which ought 
to be known and understood. This is a subject on which Unita- 
rians have vapored, and boasted, and accused and censured those 
who deserve no censure, long enough. It is high time that it should 
be explained, and set in a proper light. 



Note B. 

The following is part of a Letter received from the Rev. Mr. Putnam of Fitch- 
burg, one of those implicated by Mr. W. in his account of affairs at Lunenburg. 
After stating, that when Mr. Hubbard commenced his labors at Lunenburg, he 
'' was an entire stranger to Orthodox ministers in the neighborhood" — that they 
" knew nothing about him, and consequently nothing against him" — that their 
fears were soon excited by unfavorable reports respecting his character (not 
his exchanges) — that himself and Mr. Payson, being at Andover at the annual 
Examination, " deemed it their duty to make inquiries respecting him" — that 
the result of these inquiries only served to increase and confirm their appre- 
hensions — and that Mr. Payson, soon after his return (being obliged to go into 
Lunenburg in the discharge of some professional duty) " called on Mr. Proctor, 
and related to him the substance of what he had heard" — Mr. Putnam proceeds 
to point out several misrepresentations in the statement of Mr. Whitman. 

1. Mr. Whitman asserts, "This circumstance alone (\. e. Mr. 
Hubbard's exchanging with Unitarians) induced some Orthodox 
preachers in the vicinity of Lunenburg to make great exertions to 
prevent his installation." For one, I know that this assertion is not 



70 Appendix. 

true ; and those of whom I have inquired say that it is not true 
with respect to them. This was, to be sure, one thing which we 
deemed improper ; but it was not the onli/ thing nor the chief thing, 
which weighed in our minds. 

2. Mr. Whitman's language implies that the Orthodox ministers 
in this vicinity, went to Andover on purpose to get information 
against Mr. Hubbard — that this was their errand, their business to 
Andover. They went to Andover to attend the annual examination 
at the Theological Seminary; and they would have gone if Mr. 
Hubbard had never been heard of 

3. Mr. Whitman asserts that Orthodox ministers in this vicin- 
ity went to Andover, " and earnestly solicited from the Orthodox 
ministers in the neighborhood of Middleton, some information de- 
rogatory to the character of Mr. Hubbard." This is utterly false. 
They did not solicit information derogatorij to the character of Mr. 
Hubbard. They did make inquiries respecting his character ; but 
they had no desire to hear any thing derogatory. On the contrary, 
they would have rejoiced to have heard that he was a sound and 
faithful and laborious minister of the Gospel. 

4. Mr. Whitman's language seems to to imply that this whole 
business was a contrived plan, between the gentleman in Middle- 
ton, the Orthodox minister of Danvers, and Mr. Payson of Leomin- 
ster. He says *' false and slanderous reports, were invented by an 
individual in Middleton, communicated to an Orthodox minister in 
Danvers, and conveyed by him to the principal agent in this un- 
righteous work." As if the gentlemen in Middleton knew that the 
Orthodox minister in Danvers was going to Andover, and would 
meet Mr. Payson there on his errand of wickedness, and thus, by 
this admirable contrivance, " false and slanderons" *' inventions" 
would get in vogue in the region of Lunenburg. Now this repre- 
sentation is utterly groundless. Mr. Braman undoubtedly heard 
these reports accidentally, — he came to Andover, not knowing whom 
he might see in that place, — and Mr. Payson went to Andover not 
knowing whom he should meet. But seeing individuals from the 
region of Middleton, he thought it a favorable opportunity to learn 
something about Mr. Hubbard. He accordingly made such inqui- 
ries as he had a right to make, and as duty required him to make. 
Is it wrong for one man, with a view to the public good, to inquire into 
the character of another ? Is it not right that every one, set for the 
defence of the Gospel, should know the standing of those whom he 
may be called upon to welcome into the labors of the ministry 1 

5. Mr. Whitman's language implies, and indeed asserts, that Mr. 
Payson desired to obtain misrepresentations against Mr. Hubbard. 
" Mr. Payson," says Mr. Whitman, *' having obtained the desired 
misrepresentations, &c." This is judging a man's heart with a wit- 
ness. If Mr. Payson had such a longing after misrepresentations, 
could he not have manufactured them himself? What reason had 
he to suppose that any man in Middleton, or any Orthodox minister 
in Danvers, would assist him in this " unrighteous work ?" or that 
he would find misrepresentations "invented," ready to his hand? 



Appendix. 71 

The statement of Mr. Whitman is sheer slander — a most false and 
injurious insinuation against the moral character of an innocent man. 
Can Mr, Whitman prove an accusation like this before a court of 
justice? It might be well for him to ponder and inquire before he 
repeats it. 

6. Mr. Whitman says, " By the terrors of the civil law, he (Mr. 
Hubbard) compelled them to confess their wickedness and agency 
in the base undertaking." What does this language mean? Who 
confessed ? what minister confessed his " wickedness?" I know of 
none. And who was terrified by the threats of the ''civil law?" 
Not Mr. Payson surely. He could not alter his belief, nor his state- 
ments, whatever threats he received from Mr. Hubbard, till some 
evidence was presented to him that the information which he had 
received was incorrect; and it was on the ground of this evidence, 
and this alone, and not by the " terrors of the civil law," that Mr. 
Payson expressed his belief that these statements were incorrect. 
Mr. Whitman's language, therefore, is altogether a misrepresenta- 
tion. Mr. Payson did indeed propose to go to Middleton, to inquire 
into the truth of these statements ; but Mr. Hubbard saved him the 
trouble, by procuring the certificates which Mr. Whitman has pub- 
lished. 

7. Mr. Whitman says, respecting what he is pleased to call the 
confession of Mr. Braman, "It will show you that he was earnestly 
beset by Orthodox ministers for information, injurious to the repu- 
tation of Mr. Hubbard." This is absolutely false. Mark the lan- 
guage. " Orthodox ministers earnestly beset Mr. Braman for infor- 
mation, injurious to the character of Mr. Hubbard" — as if nothing 
but falsehood and misrepresentation — nothing but information inju- 
rious to Mr. Hubbard could satisfy these ministers ; — as if they 
wished and sought for no information, but such as would calumniate 
and slander Mr. Hubbard. The confession of Mr. Braman cannot 
and does not mean any such thing. 

It would have been more pleasing to Mr. Braman to have stated, 
and to Mr. Payson to have heard, nothing but good of Mr. Hubbard. 
It is wholly a perversion of language and a gross slander, to say that 
information injurious to reputation was desired or sought, for pur- 
poses of " wickedness." One would almost suppose Mr. Whitman 
thought himself omniscient, so unhesitatingly does he attempt to judge 
of the secrets of the heart, and ascribe the basest and vilest motives 
to those who presume to open their lips and inquire into any man's 
character. Is it wrong, it may again be asked, for one man, with a 
view to the public good, to inquire into the character of another? 

8. Mr. Whitman says that Mr. Payson " went into Lunenburg to 
circulate slanderous reports." This language implies that Mr. Pay- 
son had no other business in Lunenburg but to circulate slander — 
and that he meant to slander Mr. Hubbard. Nothing could be more 
false. He was called into Lunenburg in the discharge of ministeri- 
al duties ; and having heard what he did, he thought it important 
that those who were about to settle Mr. Hubbard should know his 
standing as a minister, not doubting himself that his statements were 
strictly true. If he was deceived, that was another thing ; but his 



72 Appendix, 

statements were not the result of malice, or a desire to injure a fel- 
low being. 

9. Mr. Whitman asserts thaf'Mr. Payson was asked before wit- 
nesses if he should have taken such a step, had not Mr. Hubbard 
exchanged with Unitarians ;" and that " his answer was — No." I 
did not believe this when I read it ; and I now have the authority 
of Mr. Payson himself to declare that it is wholly incorrect. No 
such answer was ever given by him to any such question. This is 
the grand point under this head of Mr. Whitman's — argument can it 
be called 1 This, then, being false, his grand point must be given 
up. 

10. Mr. Whitman says that Mr. Payson " also intimated that Mr. 
Putnam of Fitchburg, and Mr. Fisher of Harvard, in connexion 
with himself, had taken Lunenburg under their special protection." 
This is wholly false. Mr. Payson never intimated any such thing. 
Mr. Putnam and Mr. Fisher, in connexion with Mr. Payson, never 
had a syllable of conversation proposing or tending to any such mea- 
sures as here stated. It is all slander and falsehood. I had heard 
such a story, and supposed it had fallen from the lips of some vile tale- 
bearer, or tavern-haunter, and was tossed about among the dregs of 
society. But the thought never entered my mind that any sober, 
candid man would believe it — much less that a fellow man, clothed 
in the garb of a minister, could put it in print, and send it abroad 
in the community, with the authority of his name. 

11. In what Mr. Whitman has called Mr. Payson's confession, he 
has underscored a few words, in order to give them a sense which 
was not intended, and which implies a falsehood. Towards the close 
of this alledged confession, Mr. Payson says — " And I further de- 
clare my sincere regret that any statements made by me, from mis- 
apprehension or any other cause," &,c. Mr. Whitman has put the 
words *' or any other cause,^^ in italics, evidently to imply that Mr. 
Payson did make statements from some other cause than misapre- 
hension ; and what cause could that be, as Mr. Whitman insinuates, 
but a desire to slander and do injury to Mr. Hubbard 1 Now the 
truth is, that the words " from misapprehension or any other cause," 
have no reference to Mr. Payson, but toother persons who had taken 
occasion from what he had stated to magnify and distort his state- 
ments, and make them far worse than they really were, for the pur- 
pose of throwing odium on his character. I have the original draft 
of this paper now before me, in which the phrase above quoted is 
not inserted. It reads thus — '' And I further declare my sincere re- 
gret that any statements made by me should have been magnified in- 
to public reports, injurious," &/C. The very object of this part of 
the paper was to show that Mr. Payson's statements had been great- 
ly magnified ; and that reports had been circulated very diiferent 
from what he had stated. From some cause or other, Mr. Hubbard 
objected to this form, and would not be satisfied without the addi- 
tional words, which in the original draft are interlined after the 
word nie — viz : '* from misapprehension or any other cause, though 
I would not implicate any one individual." If Mr. Hubbard wishes 






Appendix. 73 

to refer those words to Mr. Payson, he must settle it with his 
conscience ; but it is certain that Mr. Payson intended no such thing. 
He merely meant to say that somebody, from misaj)prehension or some 
otlier cause, had distorted and magnitied his statements, and made 
them very dilForent from what he had reported t!iem. Mr. Whitman, 
by underscoring these words, and by throwing them back upon Mr. 
Payson, gives a meaning to tlie hmguagc which is not true, and 
which I certainly know was not intended. This may appear a small 
matter; but it sliows with what spirit Mr. Whitman writes. 

I have thus pointed out some of the more palpable and gross mis- 
representations and falsehoods, implied and asserted in Mr. Whit- 
man's language. But his whole statement, in almost every line and 
word, needs correction. It seems impossible for his pen to touch a 
single point connected with Orthodoxy, without distorting and per- 
verting it. 

I will add a few words in regard to Mr. Hubbard's conduct respec- 
ting the paper which Mr. Payson put into his hands. Mr. Hub- 
bard at the time expressed his entire satisfaction to Mr. Payson, and 
gave him a written certificate to that effect. He also verbally stated 
to him that he should make no use of the paper which he had sign- 
ed, except to show it, if necessary, to a few individuals, for the pur- 
pose of proving to them that he had received full satisfaction. But 
what did Mr. Hubbard do, or permit to be done, with that paper ? In 
the course of one or two days, as I am credibly informed, that con- 
fession, as it is called, was posted up on the meeting-house in Lu- 
nenburg in the most public manner ; and copies of it were, in a 
week or two, circulating in all the neighboring towns, and some of 
them, it is believed, in a mutilated form ; — and all this to throw as 
much odium on Mr. Payson's character as possible. And now he 
has put it into the hands of Mr. W' hitman to publish it to the world 
— and by his abusive epithets to make the odium still greater, if pos- 
sible. Is this a Christian course ? Is it honorable? Is it, under all 
the circumstances of the case, honest ? Is it consistent with his de- 
claration to Mr. Payson that he was satisfied, as a Christian brother 
ought to be ? Is it abiding by the golden rule, to do unto others as 
he would that others should do unto him ? I leave these few facts 
and inquiries with Mr. Hubbard's conscience. 

As to his Orthodoxy, it may be remarked that his whole influence 
in this region is against it — it is all on the side of Unitarianism. If 
he be Orthodox, surely his practice belies his principles. What, a 
man Orthodox ! and yet striving to pull down Orthodoxy, and lend- 
ing his influence to the enemies of Orthodoxy, in the vile work of 
slander and misrepresentation ! Let a discerning public judge be- 
tween such a man, and sound Orthodoxy. 



Note a 



The clergyman here referred to is the Rev. Mr. Albro of Chelmsford. The 
following IS part of a letter from him to the writer of the Review. Our limits 
have compelled us to abridge hid valuable communication, 

Mr. Whitman says that the facts which have transpired since my 
conneition with this parish, furnish evidence of " an artful and deep- 
10 



74 Appendix. 

laid plan to bring a Unitarian society upon Orthodox ground ;" and 
he charges me with wickedly concealing my sentiments in order to 
gain possession of the pulpit. The following statements will show 
what foundation there is for his charges : — 

1. Look at the state of the society previous to any attempt to set- 
tle an Orthodox minister. The society was organized in Feb. 1824. 
From the first they thought themselves too feeble to maintain a min- 
ister without foreign aid. For some time, they depended upon oc- 
casional supplies from Cambridge, but were disappointed in their 
expectations of receiving ^ny pecuniary aid from that quarter. Af- 
ter many attempts to procure the stated preaching of the Gospel, the 
society began to apprehend that they should not succeed. This is 
substantially the account given by Mr. Whitman, and no one knows 
the former condition of this people better than he, for he was the last 
Unitarian, who, for any considerable length of time, supplied their 
pulpit. He left the place with the conviction, which he very 
freely expressed, that the society could never maintain a Unitarian 
minister. So thought the leading men in the Parish. They 
pronounced the case, especially after the labors of Mr. Whit- 
man among them, absolutely hopeless, and declared that, in their 
opinion, there was no other way to build up the society, but to inter- 
est the Orthodox in their concerns, by consenting to the settlement 
of an Orthodox minister. For, said they, the Orthodox will pay 
their money to support their religion, which we have found by ex- 
perience, the Unitarians will not do. In their embarrassment, when 
as one of the leading Unitarians has often told me, they knew not 
what to do, a gentleman in Cambridge advised them to apply to An- 
dover for a candidate, and if possible to settle an Orthodox man. 
When they had, of their oivn accord^ determined to place themselves 
upon Orthodox ground and not Ibefore, several individuals in the 
vicinity, who did not then belong to the society, offered their assist- 
ance to carry so good a resolution into effect. They were also en- 
couraged to expect aid from the Massachusetts Missionary Society. 
Under .these circumstances, they obtained a candidate from Ando- 
ver with whom they were generally pleased, but who, for reasons not 
important in this connexion, was not settled. Thus you see, that in- 
stead of planning to get hold of this society, the society fled to us for 
assistance when their affairs were desperate, and they could not live 
without our aid. 

2. Next, look at the evidence of concealment, before my settle- 
ment. I was never employed by the committee of this Society as a 
candidate. Mr. Clement of Chester, N. H., was their candidate ; 
and during the summer term of my Senior year, I preached here 
several times, at his request, as did others then residing at Andover. 
Whatever individuals in this place might have thought, I did not 
consider myself, nor did the society generally consider me as a can- 
didate for settlement. While I was writing my sermons in the Sem- 
inary, and preaching occasionally here, as in other places in the 
vicinity of Andover, as is common with the students, I had not the 
slightest wish to settle here, nor the remotest expectation that I ever 
should. Under such circumstances what motive could I have had 
to conceal my sentiments ? 



Appendix. 75 

Bat further ; the society, and every one acquainted with me, well 
knew that I was Orthodox in sentiment. It was because I was Or- 
thodox, that they were anxious to settle me. This was the very 
thing they wanted : for it was by the settlement of an Orthodox 
man that they expected to gain the necessary funds for his support, 
and thus relieve themselves of a burden which they were unwilling 
to bear alone. Still farther ; nothing was ever said to me, previous 
to my receiving their call, respecting the subject of exchanges. Not 
a word was dropped by the committee, from which I could infer 
that they wished me to exchange with Unitarians. At the Parish 
meeting, when the vote was passed to give me a call, no one said 
anything on the subject. The vote appeared to be unanimous, and 
was without any condition whatever, as the papers will show. 

Almost entirely unacquainted with them, and their history, I re- 
ceived their call, as any Orthodox man would receive a call from 
an Orthodox church and society. That these statements are true, 
I appeal to the fact that in my reply to a memorial afterwards sent to 
me from sundry individuals in the society, I asserted the same things 
in substance, and they were not denied. 

3. Next look at the circumstances which occurred in the Council 
assembled to ordain me. 

The Council consisted of seven Orthodox, and two Unitarian min- 
isters. Before any business was transacted, Mr. Whitman of Biller- 
ica desired me to state what course I intended to pursue in relation 
to ministerial intercourse after my ordination. He wished to know, 
he said, whether I would exchange with the Unitarian members of 
the council. 

Mr. Allen of Chelmsford took the same ground. The council 
understood them to speak on\y for themselves. No one present sup- 
posed that they were authorized by the society to insist upon any 
concession, or that the exchanges, to which they wished to gain my 
consent, extended beyond themselves. To Mr. Whitman's question 
I replied, that I would not pledge myself to exchange with all the 
members of the council, and I appealed to the council to say wheth- 
er it was proper to insist upon such a pledge as the condition of my 
settlement. The Orthodox members said that the question of Mr. 
W. was premature inasmuch as there had as yet been no examina- 
tion touching my ministerial qualifications, &c. that the church 

and society had unanimously called me without expressing any wish, 
or fixing any conditipn in regard to exchanges, — that they met, not 
to form a new contract for us, but to ratify the one already formed — 
that they wished to leave me entirely free to act upon this subject as 
I thought expedient — that they had no right to insist upon my ex- 
changing with the members of that Council, or with any other min- 
isters ; — thus assorting for me the right of private judgement, free 
inquiry, and entire religious liberty. On the other hand, the Unita- 
rians, those sticklers for freedom, to whom there seems to be op- 
pression even in a conclusive argument for Orthodoxy — were not wil- 
ling to have me free to do what I should judge best. They wished to 
bind me with the fetters of a solemn and public pledge to exchange 
with them, whether I could conscientiously do it or not. This is 
the freedom which these worthy champions of religious liberty of- 



76 Appendix, 

fered me. ' You are free to follow the dictates of our conscience, but 
not to judge for yourself J After much discussion, Mr. W. varied 
his question. It was in this form, '' Have you come here with a 
determination not to exchange with us?" I replied in substance 
that I had come with a determination to pursue that course which, 
upon mature reflection, I should judge expedient. At this stage of 
the business Mr. C, a delegate, not a minister, from Andover, rose 
and remarked, that between the society and myself there seemed to 
be no dispute, they were perfectly satisfied — that he thought he un- 
derstood the ground taken by Mr. Whitman, and that from his ac- 
quaintance with my views, he felt authorized (he did not say was au- 
thorized, for he was not) to say that I should give satisfaction to all 
the members of the Council, and that I was present and could answer 
for myself. I was silent, and the subject was dropped. 

In confirmation of what I have said, I will add an extract from 
a letter from Dr. Church, one of the council. *' I can freely say, 
that you did not pledge yourself to exchange with Unitarians. You 
declined to say, whether you would, or would not. It was argued by 
the other side (i. e. the Orthodox) that you ought not to give any 
pledge, as to your future exchanges, either one way or the other, but 
be left to conduct them according to your sense of duty and proprie- 
ty. Thus I have always supposed the matter to be left." So much 
for the Pledge. I will merely add that I exchanged once with Mr. 
Whitman, which was all that I intended, and more than I promised, 
and he is the only Unitarian with whom I ever exchanged in my 
life. 

4. Now for the change in the confession of faith. The second 
Congregational church was organized in April 1824, by a council 
of five ministers, three of whom were Orthodox. In May following, 
a church meeting was called, the original confession set aside, and 
a new one more lax adopted in its stead. The church began, you 
see, by asserting the right to change their creed as often as they 
pleased. Of this change, the record, being upon a loose piece of 
paper, was not put into my hands. I was entirely ignorant of it, 
until severd months after my ordination. When I discovered it, I 
called the church together, and desired them to consider whether it 
would not be expedient to revise our articles of faith. With one 
voice, they agreed that it was expedient. I then laid before them a 
confession and covenant which I had prepared. After an ample dis- 
cussion of every article, and after a sufficient time to examine and 
object, if it was not consistent with their belief, it was adopted by an 
unanimous vote. At this meeting every male member of the church 
was present. 

Now what frightful squinting towards religious bondage does 
Mr. Whitman perceive in the transaction above mentioned ? Is it 
inconsistent with free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of 
Congregationalism, to change a confession of faith, when every mem- 
ber of a church wish to change it ? Would you bind men with fet- 
ters worse than an "everlasting trust-deed," to keep a creed, after 
they were convinced of its error 1 Would you force a church against 
its will, clearly and freely expressed, to persevere in a wrong course, 
when conscience and the word of God loudly called for an alteration 1 



Appendix. 77 

5. Next look at the " respectful memorial," and the " Jesuitical 
reply." 

After I had been settled more than iico years, during which time 
I had exchanged ^vith no Unitarian except JMr. W. of B., I learned 
there was much dissatisfaction in the society — not in the church — 
on account of my close preaching, as well as my illiberality in regard 
to exchanges. Indeed, the latter cause was not assigned, until after 
strong and bitter opposition had been excited and fomented against 
my doctrines. Under these circumstances, I was informed that a meet- 
ing of disaffected individuals was to be held, to see what could be 
done to restore harmony. Before this meeting was held, however I 
repeatedly heard that the Unitarians were resolved, if possible, to 
close the meeting house against me, and they were determined, at all 
events, to throw off the yoke, as they called it, which I was endeav- 
oring to fasten upon them. That oppressive yoke was composed of 
the doctrines of the cross, — and the Bible class, — and the Monthly 
Concert, at which pious persons pray cd for the conversion of sinners — 
and the Sabbath school, — and the Female benevolent Association, that 
had given money to an Orthodox missionary society from which this 
parish were then receiving a hundred dollars a year, — and the Temper- 
ance society. What a tremendous bondage, to have such things tol- 
erated in the Parish ; for let it be observed, the Unitarians did next 
to nothing to help them forward. To the leaders of the opposition, 
I made what I deemed a very fair and honorable proposal. Know- 
ing that nothing could be effected by the meeting of a few individu- 
als, I told them, that if it should appear in a Parish meeting regu- 
larly called, that a majority of my congregation were dissatisfied with 
my preaching or exchanges, I would immediately ask a dismission, 
and leave them to procure such a preacher as they liked best. This 
reasonable proposal was rejected on the ground that possibly a ma- 
jority might be in my favor. " If you get but one majority," said a 
Unitarian to me, '' we shall be bound." I w^as surprised that those 
who professed to have such lofty notions of civil and religious rights, 
should be unwilling to have a question, in which the ivhole parish 
was concerned, decided in a public meeting, especially, as they had a 
thousand times asserted that three quarters of the society were Uni- 
tarians. 

But the meeting was held. Thirty-one persons, by great exertions, 
were collected at a tavern, to devise the means of harmonizing the 
society. At this meeting, the memorial, which Mr. W. has printed 
entire, was drawn up. AH signed it. Four of these signers were 
my friends, who had been deceived in regard to the object of the 
meeting, and immediately abandoned the combination, when they 
saw the design to be, not to build up, but to pull down. Of the re- 
maining twenty-seven, more than half were known to be Universal- 
ists, who certainly felt no especial desire that I should exchange with 
Unitarians. Now let any intelligent man take that paper, dignified 
with the name of a memorial, — let him remember that I had never, 
either before, at, or after my ordination, encouraged any expecta- 
tion that I should be liberal in my exchanges, — that by the decision 
of the Council I was entirely free, — that the society never claimed 



78 Appendix, 

that I was under any obligation to comply with their " fond hopes," 

that during the two years of my ministry, I had exchanged with 

but one Unitarian^ — that there was a determination to exclude me 
from the meeting-house, at all events, if possible, — and that a ma- 
jority of the signers were Universalists ; — I say, let any man take that 
memorial, bearing these things in mind, and tell me what kind of an 
answer it demanded. Look at the "fond hope " that I would "cx- 
tend my christian charity," without pointing out which way, expres- 
sed by an equal number, if you please, of Unitarians and Universal- 
ists. Suppose I had begun to extend my charity ; should I have 
been suffered to check it, at the point where Unitarianism enlarges 
into the more liberal error of Universalism 1 

What would they have claimed of me, if I had given a general an- 
swer in the affirmative 1 What else, but that when I had exchanged 
with a few Unitarians, I must remember that a majority of my pe- 
titioners were known to be Universalists ? 

I could go on to describe the formation of the new Protestant 
Unitarian Society. 1 could tell you of the foul slanders that were 
poured out upon me and my friends, that chosen and favorite weapon of 
Unitarian warfare, — of the mode in which they took possession of the 
meeting-house, — and of the liberality which they have since shown 
towards the Universalists, whose request to have a lecture in the 
house when the Unitarians did not use it, has been refused. But 
these facts perhaps are not necessary for your purpose. 

One subject I will just touch. Mr. Whitman says somewhere in 
his book, that the Unitarians never refuse to give letters of dismis- 
sion or recommendation, to members of their churches, who wish to 
join the Orthodox. You are authorised to say, that three members 
of Mr. Allen's church have been refused letters to mine. 

I am aware that I have been prolix. But I could not be shorter. 
You have the facts — make what use of them you please. 



Note D. 



The following extract of a letter from Rev. Mr. Stone of Brookfield, will 
serve to illustrate our remarks, relative to proceedings in that place. 

I HAVE looked over Mr. Whitman's Letters, and attended particu- 
larly to his story related of our church. I find many mis-statements, 
and some of them gross. The whole is calculated to give persons 
uninformed an entirely false conception of our proceedings. I will 
endeavor to give a correct view of the transactions, which he con- 
siders so " subversive of religious liberty," that you may see and judge 
for yourself, and make such representations from them, as your own 
judgement may dictate. Mr. W. commences, in his paragraph refer- 
ing to us, by previously making a statement in respect to Orthodox 
seceders, which he very well supposes his readers would not believe 
upon his word, and I am confident no one will believe when the facts 
are known. 

In the first place, he would have it understood that the Orthodox 
minister is dismissed. I never have been dismissed. I have held 
my pastoral relation to the church the same from my ordination to 



Appendix. 79 

the present day. At the time of dissolving my civil contract with 
the parish, it was expressly voted by the parisli, as well as the church, 
that I should retain mij pasforol relation to the ehureh, and that wiien 
dissolved, it should be dissolved by an ecclesiastical council. And 
it was understood by the parties contracting, and was so expressed 
in the votes and papers, that I was entitled to the rights and immu- 
nities of other ordained ministers.* 

In the second place, he states that the secedcrs " carry off the 
church records, plate and Bible, which lawfully belong to the con- 
gregation." \lo\w the records and plate of a church can lawfully 
belong to the co«o->Yo-a^/o;jj is to me very incomprehensible, and I 
suspect will be thought so by many others. As respects our church 
records, they were in my hands, and were never asked for. As to 
the meeting-house Bible, it is utterly false that we carried it 
away. Respecting the church's furniture or plate, it is still suhju- 
dicibus. 

3d. In respect to the Church's covenant, which Mr. W. says was 
originally so liberal, that Christians of different religious opin- 
ions could honestly give their assent to it, but was changed by the 
pastor in 1825, I observe ; That the original covenant was decidedly 
Trinitarian and Orthodox; that Dr. Fiske in his day made an ab- 
stract of it, which he used in the admission of members to the church ; 
that after his death, that formula was not to be found ; and that when 
I became the pastor, a committee of the church was appointed to form 
another, which, without setting aside the original covenant, was used 
till 1825, when the present covenant and articles of faith, (substan- 
tially the same, with the original covenant of the church, but some- 
what more definite and with scriptural proofs) was adopted. That 
Unitarians would be disposed to assent to the original covenant, or 
to the abbreviated formula, according to the obvious import of the 
terms, I do not believe, any more than they would to the one in 
present use. 

Again, there is a grievous oppression charged upon us, that we 
excommunicated two individuals for breach of covenant engage- 
ments, when in truth they " had broken no covenant engagements, 
2LS they never signed the neio Orthodox creed. '^ — This is a won- 
derful discovery ; and perhaps you will think a " solemn trifling," 
when I tell you, there was no one that signed it. A printed copy 
was put into each member's hands, and after consideration for the 
space of four months, at a full meeting of the members of the 
church, they all signified their assent to, and adoption of, the articles 
and covenant, by rising from their seats, as proposed by their pastor, 
with the exception of one female, and she declined rising from no 
objection, as I have reason to believe, to the articles of faith. Of 
this I am certain, that one of those excluded, of whom Mr. W. says 
that they broke no covenant engagements, as they " never signed the 

* It was knouTi to the Council which ordained Mr. Noyes, the Unitarian minister, that 
Mr. Stone had not been dismissed from the church, no< even from those tchorn ihetj recog- 
nized as the church, and yet they established Mr. Noyes over it — thus selling up the prin- 
ciple, that the regular pastor of a church may iiave another man crowded mto his place 
and office without his consent aud against his wishes. How does all this comport with 
" religious liberty and the principles' of Congregationalism ? " 



80 Appendix. 

new Orthodox creed," did rise from his seat when the vote was cal- 
led for by the pastor, thus publicly signifying his assent to the arti- 
cles of belief and church covenant. The other excluded male mem- 
ber I presume was not present at the time ; as I very much question 
whether he ever attended a church meeting since my connexion with 
the church ; — and I am greatly mistaken, if, for ten years previous to 
his exclusion, he had attended public worship ten sabbaths in a year. 
For the last part of the time, he wholly absented himself 

Respecting the ten females who were excluded by the vote of the 
church, 1 have only to say, that it was delayed for more than two 
years, and not passed then, until each of them had been visited by a 
committee of the church, mquiring of them to which church they 
chose to belong, and saying that they could not belong to two. The 
letter addressed to them, as published by Mr. W., I believe is correct 
and entire. And however " canting and whining," I am very wil- 
ling the world should read it.* 



Note E. 

The following is the Constitution to which Mr. W. refers : — 

We, whose names are underwritten, being sensible of the sacred 
nature of the object for which we are patronized by the Christian 
public, and feeling the necessity which is laid upon us to cultivate a 
spirit of prayer, and of devotedness to God, do hereby unite for the 
purpose of observing, monthly, a season of prayer, with special re- 
ference to our connection with the American Education Society, and 
in conformity with the following rules. 

1. This Concert shall be composed of those members of 

who have been regularly received under the pa- 
tronage of the American Education Society, and who shall furnish 
the usual Testimonial which is given by the Society to young men 
under its care. 

2. A meeting for prayer shall be held on the Tuesday evening 
immediately following the first Monday of each month, at such hour 
and place as shall be agreed upon ; except, that in vacations, or 
when individuals necessarily prevented by the Providence of God 
from attending, the season shall be remembered, as there may be 
opportunity or ability, in private. 

3. A presiding member shall be chosen once a year, or oftener, 
if circumstances require it, to preside at the meetings ; to keep the 
records, or other property belonging to the Concert ; to conduct the 
correspondence ; to notify the members, before each meeting, and 
to call special meetings of the Concert, whenever it shall be deemed 
important. It shall be the duty of the presiding member to call 
upon each member of the Concert, in the order of seniority, to take 
part in the exercises ; also to make a record of each meeting, con- 
taining the names of members present, the order of exercises, and 
any thing else which he may deem suitable to insert. 

* In Feb. 1828, the Unitarian minister and those associated with him, oallinj^ themselves 
the church, passed a vole of exclusion against the whole church which had left the parish, 
pastor and all. 



Apiundix. 81 

4. There shall, ordinarily, he four prayers at each meeting. 
The First Jbr ourselves, and for our Brethren in other institutions ^ 

who enjoy, with 21s, the patronage of the American Education Society, 
that we may be the sincere disciples of the Lord Jesus, and never be 
left to deceive ourselves or others concerning the hope which we 
have professed before many witnesses ; that we may possess, in large 
and increasing measure, the spirit of humility, self-denial, disinter- 
estedness, and holy zeal ; that our hearts may be filled with the 
love of God, and of the souls of men, so that we may count it our 
highest happiness, if we shall hereafter be called to this service, to 
carry the Gospel to the meanest and most destitute of our fellow- 
men ; that we may be kept, during our preparation for the ministry, 
from pursuing any course of conduct which may bring reproach on 
ourselves, or on our benefactors, or on the cause of religion ; and 
that we may diligently use the means afforded us for religious and 
literary improvement : that, at length, we may be prepared to en- 
gage in the glorious work to which we desire to devote our lives and 
all that we possess, and be used as successful instruments of advan- 
cing the kingdom and glory of Christ. 

The Second prayer shall be, especially, for the prosperity of the 
American Education Society, and of its several Branches ; for the 
members and supporters of them respectively, that they may have a 
rich reward for their exertions, in the salvation of great numbers of 
their fellow men — and that the funds given by them may never be 
perverted, nor lost upon unworthy recipients; for the Executive 
ojfficers on whom is immediately devolved the concerns of the Gene- 
ral Institution or of the Branches, that they may have wisdom from 
above to guide them in all their deliberations ; and for the Secreta- 
ry of the Parent Society, in particular, that he may have grace and 
every needful qualification for his various and responsible duties. 

The Third prayer shall have reference to those who are destitute 
of the Gospel in our own country, and in other parts of the world; 
that the waste places of Zion may be built up ; that the tide of moral 
desolation, which is coming in like a flood, may be stayed ; that the 
supply of ministers of the Gospel may keep pace with the rapid in- 
crease of our population ; especially that the western and newly set- 
tled pdiVis of our country may be blessed with a competent and faith- 
ful ministry — that the glorious enterprise of converting the world 
may go on with more and more success, till missionaries are raised 
up for all unevangelized nations, and the earth is full of the knowl- 
edge and glory of the Loi'd. 

The Fourth prayer shall be for a revival of religion in the Insti- 
tution to which we belong, and for a similar effusion of the Holy 
Spirit in all the Academies, Colleges, and Theological Seminaries in 
our land, that hundreds of young men who are now training up for 
public life may be converted to God, and become heralds of salvation 
to their fellow-men. In this prayer may also be remembered the 
instructers and governors of literary and sacred institutions. 

5. The intervals between the prayers may be occupied in singing, 
reading portions of Scripture, or other appropriate pieces, giving in- 
telligence, or in Christian conference, as there may be time or occa- 
sion. The subjects of each prayer, as given above, shall be read by 
the presiding member immediately before the prayer is offered ; and 

11 



82 Appendix. 

previous to the last prayer being made, the following questions shall 
be proposed by the presiding member, for free and fraternal conver- 
sation. What is the present state of religion in this Institution, and 
especially among ourselves? Cannot some measures be taken to in- 
crease the spirit of piety in our own hearts, and to promote a revival 
of religion in the Institution with which we are connected ? 

6. The members of the Concert will strive to cherish a fraternal 
interest for the spiritual welfare and usefulness of each other, and 
will endeavor faithfully to perform towards each other the duties 
which belong to members of the same Christian brotherhood. 

7. If at any time this Concert should cease to exist, the records 
and other property belonging to it shall be deposited with the senior 
officer of the Institution, where it was established, subject to the or- 
der of the Directors of the American Education Society. 



Note F. 

The only shadow of an excuse for all this tissue of misrepresentation must 
have been an oversight which occurred on the day of the annual meeting of the 
stockholders, and is thus explained by our informant : 

These memorials were returned, the day of the annual meeting of 
the stockholders, and were handed to a gentleman of this village to 
be copied. Supposing the memorial to be the same in all the towns, 
and being pressed for time, he did not take the precaution to read 
them, and attached all the names to one copy, and among the rest 
the signatures to the Lima memorial. This mistake was not disco- 
vered till the memorial was read before the stockholders, nor am I now 
certain whether it was then observed. The transfer was made by a 
gentleman of unblemished character and unquestionable integrity, 
and the error occurred in a way capable of an easy and satisfactory 
explanation. The whole representation, therefore, which Mr. Whit- 
man has given of this matter is, to use his own language, *' a gross 
deception." 

" It is not a matter of regret to me," continues our correspond- 
ent, *' that this subject]is brought before the public. On the contrary, 
I am heartily glad that an opportunity is afforded of correcting the 
misrepresentations, and confuting the slanders, which, I have rea- 
son to suppose, have been freely and extensively circulated, to the 
prejudice of religion, among a certain class of people in your sec- 
tion of the country ; and I shall be pleased to furnish you with any 
further detail of facts relating to this school, which, in your opinion, 
the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom may render consistent 
and proper to be spread before the public. Indeed I have long been 
waiting and wishing for a call in Providence to give the full history 
of this school publicity. I am persuaded that a detail of all the facts 
in the case, would show most clearly the disingenuity, management 
and insidious arts of Unitarianism. It will be sufficient, however, 
to say, at present, that the school entirely failed under the care of 
the three young men from Harvard : and that, at the end of the two 
years for which they were employed, they left it, almost without scho- 
lars, without reputation in the community, and without credit to 
themselves. It has since been put under the care of a gentleman of 



Appendix. 83 

correct principles and excellent qualifications, who has daily com- 
municated instruction in the great truths of the gospel, under whom 
it has acquired reputation, risen to a respectable standing, and regain- 
ed the confidence of the Christian community. There is at present 
something of a revival of religion in the school : No less than from 
ten to twelve of the scholars have, within a few weeks, been led to 
cherish the hope of an interest in Christ, and a number more ap» 
pear to be under conviction." 



Note G. 

The Church here referred to is presumed to be that in Berkley, 
Mass. Several individuals in that place, having become dissatisfied 
with the pastor, withdrew from his ministrations, joined a parish in 
an adjoining town, and requested a dismission from the church, and 
a recommendation to the church where they worshipped. The 
Council, of which Mr. Storrs was a member, was called to con- 
sider the propriety of granting their request. This Council decided 
that their request was unreasonable, and ought not to be granted ; 
but we find nothing in their result respecting the excommunication 
of the individuals concerned. A subsequent'lCouncil has decided 
that "it would have been expedient," and more comformable to " the 
ancient Platform of our churches," to have granted their request. 



Note H. 
We extract the following from the London Congregational Magazine. 

We have lately received various letters from Geneva^ which show 
that Christians in that once highly favored, but now apostate city, 
are at present placed in a very critical situation. Most of our read- 
ers are acquainted with the awakening which took place there about 
ten years ago, through the blessing that rested on the labors of Mr. 
Haldane, among the Theological students of the University. Shortly 
after that period, the ^' Venerable Company'' of pastors took alarm 
at the rapid growth o{ Methodism ; and the appearance of it among 
some of the most distinguished of their own body greatly increased 
their anxiety. Their first step was to draw up certain articles pro- 
hibiting any minister to preach on the divinity of our Lord, original 
sin, and other fundamental doctrines. They refused ordination to 
any of the students who would not subscribe, and in consequence 
many were rejected. 

M. Malan, not having yet obtained admission into the company of 
pastors, although he had been regularly ordained, was made the next 
object of attack. Our readers are generally aware of the persecution 
which that undaunted champion of the cross of Christ has at vari- 
ous times been called to endure. They know that he has been de- 
posed from his office as regent of the College, deprived of his min- 
isterial character in the church, and that he only is indebted to the 
indulgence of the government for the degree of toleration he has en- 
joyed, in being suffered to preach in a chapel which has been built 
for him without the walls. M. Malan, although the most distin- 
guished, was not the only victim, and the story of Empetaz, Gonties, 



84 Appendix. 

Gyt, Guers, &c. would present another picture of injurious and vex- 
atious persecution exerted against bold and faithful, though unoffend- 
ing witnesses for the truth. 

Such had continued to be the state of affairs till within the last few 
months, when the enmity of the Geneva pastors against the truth, 
seemed to have gained fresh strength. The increasing numbers 
which frequented the preaching of M. Malan, the continual instances 
that were occurring of conversion through his instrumentality, and 
the blessing which attended the ministry of Messrs. Empetaz, Guers, 
&/C. seemed more and more to arouse their indignation. Their an- 
imosity was in a special manner directed against M. Gausen, one of 
their own number, who, ever since he was brought to know the 
truth about ten years ago, has not ceased to labor with unceasing 
assiduity and distinguished success in the vineyard of the Lord. 
M. Gausen was the last summer formally excluded every pulpit in 
Geneva, except his own at Satigny, and it seems doubtful whether 
his situation as a pastor, and his connexion with some of the first 
families at Geneva, will continue to protect this faithful minister of 
Christ. 

M. Chausiere, one of the Arian or Socinian pastors, also preach- 
ed a most violent sermon against the Momiers or Methodists, whom 
he attacked with the most unmeasured warmth, and represented 
them as enemies to the State. This sermon had the effect of exas- 
perating the populace to such a degree, that it was not safe for any 
of the evangelical preachers to be seen in the streets. M. Guers 
was stoned in one of the public squares, and narrowly escaped with 
his life ; and M. Malan's house was also attacked. In the mean 
time every attempt was made to calumniate and traduce the Christ- 
ians at Geneva. Every lie was invented, and greedily propagated 
through the medium of the newspapers, for the purpose of pouring 
on them obloquy and contempt. If a person committed suicide, it 
was said he had heard a sermon from one of the Momiers. If a 
person became deranged, his disorder was attributed to the same 
cause. 

But affairs at Geneva wear, it seems, a still more critical aspect 
than before. It seems that Mr. Bost, a preacher who was formerly 
excluded from the church at Geneva, and who is well known abroad 
for his uncommon talent, zeal and boldness, as well as for the extra- 
ordinary blessing that has attended his labors, especially in Germa- 
ny, published an answer to the above-mentioned sermon of Mr. 
Chausiere. We have not seen Mr. Bost's pamphlet, but understand 
it displayed much ability, and contained a very masterly exposure 
of the futility of the charges brought against the 3Iomiers by M. 
Chausiere. The " venerable company" at Geneva were, however, 
much enraged at the boldness of Mr. I3ost, and determined if possi- 
ble to crush him. A prosecution was commenced against him by 
the public prosecutor, who charged him with describing the pastors 
at Gfeneva as a sect in the Christian world who denied some of the 
leading doctrines of the Gospel. For this alleged crime, he desired 
that Mr. Bost should be imprisoned for two years, and pay a fine of 
2000 florins." It is added, that Mr. Bost pleaded his own cause, 
that his defence was admirable, and that he was acquitted, to the 
great mortification of the clergy. 



>-3>:^> 












>~>:» 

:>!»:> 



^1^^ 



3^> 






1>X>>^ 






3» ^^>>»*>3_> 



^^ 



^^? 

:>'^:» 












J? 

> >> > 






























SE»>S\ 



^XED 



> >^ > ^■:>^ 

i»» > ^ >> -^ 

> :>>»o ;)> 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-211 1 



,7 > y ^ 









?>>.*^ 









s> »> V> >^ " 

5 55 l9/- 









^^ 



^>>::fc>^ 






,» 

?:?^ 












»3S» 






^^^'^ 



JOT 



-^ ^ 



a>^ 















9 y?^i>3 






^fi 

»; 



a 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 235 657 • 



